Computer Associates Intern., Inc. v. Altai, Inc.

Decision Date09 August 1991
Docket NumberNo. CV 89-0811.,CV 89-0811.
Citation775 F. Supp. 544
PartiesCOMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. ALTAI, INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Weil, Gotshal & Manges by Stephen D. Kahn, New York City, for plaintiff.

Anderson Kill Olick & Oshinsky by Susan G. Braden, Washington, D.C., Susman & Godfrey by Steven D. Susman, Dallas, Tex., for defendant.

                                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS
                  I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 549
                 II. FACTS AND BACKGROUND ................................................... 549
                     A. Parties ............................................................. 549
                     B. Computers, Computer Programs, and Operating Systems ................. 549
                     C. Operating System Compatability Components (Interfaces) .............. 551
                     D. The Computer Programs ............................................... 552
                
                         1. CA-SCHEDULER .................................................... 552
                         2. ADAPTER ......................................................... 552
                         3. ZEKE ............................................................ 552
                         4. OSCAR ........................................................... 552
                     E. Dramatis Personae ................................................... 553
                         1. James P. Williams ............................................... 553
                         2. Claude F. Arney, III ............................................ 553
                     F. Development of OSCAR 3.4 ............................................ 553
                     G. Rewrite of OSCAR 3.4 into OSCAR 3.5 ................................. 554
                     H. Evaluation of Altai's rewrite of OSCAR .............................. 554
                III. DISCUSSION ............................................................. 555
                     A. Copyright Infringement .............................................. 555
                         1. Ownership of a Valid Copyright .................................. 555
                         2. Copying of the Copyrighted Work ................................. 557
                            a. Access ....................................................... 558
                            b. Substantial Similarity ....................................... 558
                               i. Similarities between ADAPTER and OSCAR 3.4 ................ 560
                              ii. Similarities between ADAPTER and OSCAR 3.5 ................ 561
                     B. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets ................................... 562
                         1. Preemption ...................................................... 563
                            a. Law of the Case? ............................................. 563
                            b. Preemption Analysis As Applied to the Facts .................. 563
                         2. Choice of Law ................................................... 566
                            a. Which State's Principles? .................................... 566
                            b. Which State's Substantive Law? ............................... 566
                            c. Is the Texas Statute of Limitations a Bar? ................... 566
                     C. Damages ............................................................. 567
                         1. CA's View of Damages ............................................ 567
                         2. Altai's View of Damages ......................................... 568
                         3. Defects in CA's View ............................................ 568
                            a. CA's Actual Damages .......................................... 568
                            b. Altai's Profits from OSCAR 3.4 ............................... 570
                            c. Altai's Enhanced Good Will ................................... 570
                         4. Defects in Altai's View ......................................... 570
                            a. CA's Actual Damages .......................................... 570
                            b. Altai's Profits from OSCAR 3.4 ............................... 571
                            c. Altai's Enhanced Good Will ................................... 571
                         5. Evaluation and Conclusion as to Damages ......................... 571
                         6. Interest ........................................................ 572
                     D. Housekeeping Matters ................................................ 572
                         1. Punitive Damages ................................................ 572
                         2. Attorney's Fees ................................................. 572
                            a. OSCAR 3.4 .................................................... 572
                            b. OSCAR 3.5 .................................................... 573
                         3. Fees of Dr. Davis ............................................... 573
                         4. Costs ........................................................... 573
                         5. The French Motion ............................................... 573
                         6. Exhibits ........................................................ 573
                 IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................. 573
                
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GEORGE C. PRATT, Circuit Judge (sitting by designation):

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Computer Associates International, Inc. ("CA") brought this action in August 1988 alleging that defendant Altai, Inc. ("Altai") had copied substantial portions of CA's SCHEDULER program into Altai's own computer software programs known as ZEKE, ZACK, and ZEBB. CA claims that Altai infringed CA's copyright in CA-SCHEDULER; in addition, CA claims that Altai misappropriated CA's trade secrets by incorporating elements of the CA-SCHEDULER program into ZEKE, ZACK, and ZEBB. The focal point of CA's claims of both copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation is a discrete portion of Altai's programs called OSCAR, which CA contends was copied from a portion of its CA-SCHEDULER program known as ADAPTER.

After most of the pretrial proceedings had been completed, this case was assigned to the undersigned for trial without a jury. Because of the extensive technical evidence and expert testimony anticipated from both sides, the court appointed Dr. Randall Davis of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as its own expert, pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 706.

Trial commenced on March 28, 1990, and concluded on April 6, 1990, following which counsel submitted additional memoranda for the court's consideration.

This memorandum and order disposing of this action includes the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).

II. FACTS AND BACKGROUND

A. The Parties

Plaintiff CA is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, and has its principal place of business at 711 Stewart Avenue, Garden City, New York 11530. Defendant Altai is incorporated under the laws of the State of Texas and has its principal place of business at 624 Six Flags Drive, Arlington, Texas 76011. Both CA and Altai design, develop, market, and support various computer software programs.

B. Computers, Computer Programs, and Operating Systems

To understand what ADAPTER and OSCAR do, it is necessary to focus upon how computers work and consider some basic computer terminology. Computers are machines which can do certain things based upon instructions. A computer is traditionally viewed as composed of three fundamental components: a CPU (central processing unit), some memory, and some means of getting input and displaying output. The CPU is where all the actual computing is done. Memory is used to hold the program that is being run, as well as to provide a place for the program to store the intermediate results of a calculation.

A computer program, as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, "is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer to bring about a certain result." Computer programs can be classified as systems programs and applications programs. Systems programs are concerned with the operation or use of the computer. Applications programs perform a task or set of tasks for the computer user, such as payroll accounting, data base operation, or word processing.

Programs that run on the same computer and operating system can be divided into three types. The first, resident programs, reside in the computer's memory where they run continuously. CA-SCHEDULER and Altai's ZEKE are resident programs. A second type, batch programs, are scheduled, started, and run to completion of a particular job. The third group, server programs, are resident programs used by other programs to perform a service. ADAPTER and OSCAR are both classified as server programs.

One particular type of system software is called operating system software. Operating systems are the programs that manage the resources of the computer and allocate those resources to other programs that need them. For example, operating system software might perform, among others, these functions:

— channeling information entered at a keyboard to the proper application program;
— sending information from an application program to a display screen;
— providing blocks of memory to an application program that requires them; and
— allocating processing time among several application programs running on the computer at the same time.

Operating system software interacts with whatever other programs are being used or "executed" by the computer, providing computer resources such as processors, memory, disk space, printers, tape drives, etc. for the other programs that need them through what are often referred to as "system calls". For this interaction to occur properly, the other programs must be compatible with the operating system software in use on the computer, i.e., they must be able to exchange information precisely and accurately with the operating system to interact with those computer resources.

The computers involved in this case are IBM's System 370 family of computers. These are mainframe computers which come in varying sizes. IBM designed and developed three different operating systems for use with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Computer Associates Intern., Inc. v. Altai, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 17 December 1992
    ...familiarity with the facts set forth in the district court's comprehensive and scholarly opinion. See Computer Assocs. Int'l., Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 775 F.Supp. 544, 549-55 (E.D.N.Y.1991). Thus, we summarize only those facts necessary to resolve this appeal. I. COMPUTER PROGRAM DESIGN Certai......
  • Medtech Products Inc. v. Ranir, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 30 September 2008
    ...a claim of unfair competition that was not preempted by the Copyright Act. Id. at 717-18; see also Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 775 F.Supp. 544, 553-554 (E.D.N.Y.1991). Accordingly, the Second Circuit remanded the case back to the district court to more fully consider the "f......
  • In re Independent Serv. Organ. Antitrust Lit.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • 21 March 1997
    ...the preexisting work before bringing an infringement action based on the derivative work. See Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 775 F.Supp. 544, 555-57 (E.D.N.Y.1991), aff'd in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir.1992); 2 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nim......
  • Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando American, Inc., Civ. A. No. 92-S-136.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • 12 August 1992
    ...Data East. Access can be defined as "the opportunity to view or to copy" the plaintiff's work. Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 775 F.Supp. 544, 558 (E.D.N.Y.1991), citing Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, 562 F.2d at 1172. Some courts have held that where th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Reading the Tea Leaves: Practical Insights from Case Law on Software Copyright Registration
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 9-5, May 2017
    • 1 May 2017
    ...as original or derivative, and requiring the identification of excluded material and new material). 8. See id. §§ 512, 621.4, 621.5. 9. 775 F. Supp. 544 (E.D.N.Y. 1991), aff’d in part and vacated in part on other grounds , 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992). 10. Id. at 549. 11. Id. at 555–56. 12. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT