Court of Appeal Finds All Roads Lead to Rome


COURTOFAPPEALFINDSALLROADSLEADTOROM

by
HuguesG.Richard
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com

Ifthereeverweredoubtsastowhetherlawwasascienceoranart,the
readingofthereasonsforjudgmentoftheFederalCourtofAppealof
CanadainMACKINTOSHCOMPUTERSLTD.etal.v.APPLECOMPUTERINC.et
al.andJAMESBEGGetal.v.APPLECOMPUTERINC.etal.(CourtNo.A-275-86
JudgmentrenderedatOttawaon13October1987)shouldconvince
everyonethatitisanart.Rarelyhavesuchdistinguishedjuristscometothe
sameconclusionsviasomanydifferentroutes.
TheseweretwoappealsfromjudgmentsrenderedbyMadamJusticeReed
(1986),10C.P.R.(3d)1.AsMr.JusticeHugessenputsit:”TheAppellantshavein
popularparlance,piratedtwocomputerprogramsusedbytheRespondents
intheirAppleIIcomputer.Itiscommongroundthattheprogramsinquestion,
whenwritten,astheyoriginallywere,inletters,symbolsandfiguresknownas
6502assemblycode,wereoriginalliteraryworkssubjecttocopyrightandthat
thecopyrightthereinvestsinrespondentAppleComputerInc.Butthe
Appellantshavenotcopiedtheprogramswritteninassemblycode.They
havenotcopiedanywritingatall.Whattheyhavedoneisreproduce
apparentlybymechanicalmeans,theelectricalcircuitryofasiliconchip
(ROMchip)inwhich,bythemagicofcomputerscience,theprogramsare
embodied.ThequestionatissueistoknowwhethertheAppellantshave
infringedtheRespondents’copyrightintheoriginalassemblycodeprograms.
”
Attrial,thequestionwasansweredintheaffirmative.Onappeal,itwasalso
answeredintheaffirmativebyJusticesMahoney,Hugessen,and
MacGuigan,butfordifferentreasons.Threedistinctcopyrightissuesareof
interestinthedecision:theissueoftranslation,theissueofreproduction,and
thequestionofinfringingcontrivances.
Translation.MadamJusticeReedhadfoundattrialthattheconversionof
theprogramsinissuefromassemblvlanguageinwhichtheywereoriginally
writtentohexadecimalmachinelanguagewasatranslationfallingwithins.


3(1)(a)oftheCopyrightAct.MrJusticeMahoneydisagreedwiththatfinding
andstatedthatsuchaconversionwasnotatranslationcontemplatedbythe
Act.
Mr.JusticeHugessenalsofoundthatMadamJusticeReedhadgonewrong
onthetranslationissue.Hewrote:”Icannotaccept,asthetrialjudgeseems
tohavedone,thattheAppellants’chipswerea’translation’ofthe
Respondents’programs,contrarytoparagraph3(1)(a).Inmyview,
‘translation’isusedhereinitsprimarysenseoftheturningofsomethingfrom
onehumanlanguageintoanother.”
Mr.JusticeMacGuiganwasnotascategoricalastheotherJustices.Hedid
quote,withoutdisagreeing,passagesofMadamJusticeReed’sjudgmenton
thequestion.Hedidnot,however,finditnecessarytodecidetheissue
becauseofconclusionsbasedonthequestionofreproduction.
Reproduction.Mr.JusticeMahoneyfoundthattheembodimentofthe
programsintheROMchipscanbeconsideredareproductionoftheoriginal
programs,andthattheexclusiverighttoreproductionwastheRespondents’
prerogative.Incomingtothisconclusion,hesaid,hewasinfullagreement
withMr.JusticeMacGuigan,whohadinhisreasonsforjudgment
distinguishedthejudgmentsofamajorityoftheHighCourtofAustraliain
COMPUTEREDGEv.APPLE(1986),65A.L.R.33.BothMessrs.JusticeMahoney
andMacGuiganhadlittlehesitationinarrivingatsuchaconclusion.Itwas
notaseasyforMr.JusticeHugessen.
ThelatteralsocametotheconclusionthattheAppellant’schipsarea
reproductionoftheassemblycodeprogramsinwhichtheRespondentsheld
thecopyright.Hefound,however,thatitwasnecessaryforhimtoexpand
somewhatontheprocessbywhichhearrivedatthatconclusion.Itseemed
obvioustohimthatwhenonereproducesawork,thatresultmustbea”work”
inorderthatthereproductionbeconsideredaninfringement.Ifwhatis
beingreproducedisaliterarywork,asisthecasehere,theresultmust
necessarilybealiterarywork,i.e.,expressedinprintorwriting.However,in
thepresentcase,hefoundthattheresultofthereproductionwasnota
literaryworkbut”open-and-closedelectricalcircuits”embodiedinasilicon
chip.OnewouldhaveexpectedMr.JusticeHugessentoconclude,because
oftheforegoingthattherewasnoinfringementofthecopyright.Hedidnot.
Onthecontrary,hethenwentthroughawellstructuredreasoning,attheend
ofwhichheconcludedthatanyonewhomakesandsellstothepublic
anything(i.e.,theAppellants’ROMchips)designedorintendedtoreproduce
acopyrightedworkgivesanimpliedauthorizationtothepurchasertoeffect
suchreproduction.Hefoundthatthemeansofreproductiondidnotitself


constituteareproductionwithinthemeaningofsubsection3(1)oftheAct,
butthattheimpliedauthorizationtoreproduceconstitutedinfringement.
ChipsasInfringingContrivances.Mr.JusticeMahoneygaveindicationsthat
hesawsomemeritintheargumentthattheROMchipswereinfringing
contrivanceswithinthemeaningofs.3(1)(d).However,Mr.JusticeMahoney,
agreeingwithMr.JusticeMacGuigan,foundthatitwasnotnecessaryto
decidethatissue,inviewofhisfindingthattheRespondents’computer
programsembodiedintheirROMchipswerereproductionsofthecomputer
programswritteninassemblylanguageinwhichcopyrightisadmittedto
havesubsisted.
ForMr.JusticeHugessen,ROMchipsarenotcontrivancesbymeansofwhich
theworkmaybemechanicallyperformedordeliveredwithinthemeaningof
s.3(1)(d).Hecametothisconclusionbasedonhisanalysisofthedefinitionsof
thewords”performance”and”delivery”.
Conclusion.EventhoughBillC-60,abilltoamendtheCopyrightAct,should
becomelawintheforeseeablefutureandthereforecuremanyofthe
deficienciesofthepresentCopyrightActconcerningcomputersoftware,this
judgmentoftheFederalCourtofAppealwillremainanimportantdecision,
notsomuchforitsconclusionsasforthereasoningbehindthem.Allroads
leadtoROM
Publishedat(1987),1W.I.P.R.6-7underthetitleCourtofAppealFindsAll
RoadsLeadtoRom.
LEGERROBICRICHARD,1987.



ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,
distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeet
arbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslive
here.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD