1. Ideas
   1. Novel has its own copyright as a complete text. But not for genre or plot. But what about characters?
   2. Why dichotomy matters?
      1. 1. When copyright arise?
      2. 2. When the infringement is committed?
      3. 2.5 What rights does the author have?
      4. 3. Defences (parody)
   3. Monopoly
   4. Unfair Competition
      1. Copyright used in a manner not purported
   5. Economic repercursions
   6. Free Speech
2. Cases
   1. Donoghue v. Allied Newspapers Limited
      1. The person who has clothed the idea in form
   2. Donaldson v Beckett
      1. Topic
   3. Elanco (Herbisides), Plix Products
   4. Designers' Guild
      1. No copying of substantial part
      2. The more abstract and simple the copied idea, the less likely it is to constitute a substantial part
   5. Newspaper Licensing Agency v Marks and Spencer
      1. the typographical arrangement of a newspaper being expressed in anything less than a full page
   6. Ashdown
   7. Ravenscroft v Herbert
      1. can use historical facts, but not adopt the language, selection and arrangement
      2. hat is what, in one sense, occurred in Ravenscroft v Herbert and New English Library Ltd [1980] R.P.C. 193 , but in that case there was wholesale pillaging of not only theme (and “a single theme” at that, see 198, l.25) but also incident and language (see at 200/203), which on any view has not occurred here.
   8. Baigent v Random House Group (Dan Simmons)
      1. facts, themes and ideas - open
      2. enable a fair balance to be struck between protecting the rights of the author and allowing literary development
   9. Norowzian v Arks
      1. No protection for style or technique
   10. PC
       1. Ibcos Computers v Barclays Mercantile
          1. code + program structure and design features
          2. overborrowing
       2. Cantor Fitzgerald v Tradition UK
          1. only at a very high level of abstraction - similarity with a plot
          2. better to use substantiality - originality - skill and labour taken
       3. Navitaire v EasyJet Airline
          1. no theme or narrative flow, series of pre-defined operations - business logic not protectable
3. Pros and Cons
   1. Cons
      1. Stiffle creativity by declining to ptorect the works thich fall outside of 8 categories (developments of cultural genres)
         1. Creation Records Limited and Others v. News Group Newspapers Ltd - swimming pool
      2. Merged with neighbouring concepts: originality and fixation
      3. Uncertain, too much of the judge's discretion, and it is not reviewable
         1. In Herbert v. Ravenscroft, the claimant successfully fenced off a contested idea revolving around the Spear of Destiny's mystical powers while an opposite conclusion was reached in Baigent v. Random House where a disputed idea concerning Christ's celibacy was denied copyright protection
            1. Merits of the case?
         2. For example, the Baigent case recognised the importance of freeing “historical” ideas from the reach of copyright monopolies, but a similar conclusion was not arrived at in Herbert v. Ravenscroft or Harman v. Osborne. These inconsistencies and uncertainties contravene one of the basic pillars of the rule of law namely that the law must be certain and they reflect the pressures of interlocutory litigation in copyright law.
      4. Free expression
         1. Firstly, the idea/expression dichotomy encourages widespread dissemination of information without fear of copyright infringement claims and it promotes self-actualisation by permitting subsequent authors to use untransformed ideas in their works. Secondly, the idea/expression dichotomy promotes access to the raw materials required for transformative uses of existing copyright works.
         2. Sometimes only one expression
            1. The Elanco case was wrongly decided because it ignored the possibility that there were no alternative means of expressing the scientific information in question
   2. Pros
      1. Can take into account individual circumstances, merits, conflicting interests
4. Plan
   1. 1. Introduction
      1. IP law provides monopoly - To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts (US Const - A I S 8 C 8 - inherently dangerous - moreover - little originality - no fair use defence or right to personal use - idea/expression important to limit the monopoly - protect abstract ideas - but argued that falls short - has its problems
      2. impedes access to canonical ideas and confers an uncertain monopoly on authors thereby harming the economic advantages of copyright ownership
   2. 2. Why matters?
      1. 1. When copyright arise?
      2. 2. When the infringement is committed?
      3. 2.5 What rights does the author have?
      4. 3. Defences (parody)
   3. What to do?
      1. Systemize CL
      2. Statutory Footing
      3. Purposive Interpretation