FINDINGS OF FACT:
* The PROLOK software license agreement.
* A program on a PROLOK diskette can not be copied.
* Quaid Software's CopyWrite program defeats PROLOK copy protection.
* Ordinary practice of computer users is to make archival backup copies.
* CopyWrite/RAMKEY is used to make legitimate archival copies of software.
* Quaid takes steps to prevent the use of CopyWrite for illegal purposes.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
* Vault claims jurisdiction exists in Louisiana.
* In considering an injunction a court must carefully weigh four factors.
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT:
* Definition of copyright infringement.
* Vault claims that Quaid has infringed its copyright in 3 ways.
* 1976 Copyright Act § 117 exempts copies made for archival purposes.
* The Court finds no contributory infringement.
* CopyWrite makes archival copies as allowed by § 117(2) of Copyright Act.
* The Court rules in favor of Quaid.
LOUISIANA LAW:
* Vault contends Quaid is bound by license agreement.
* Vault argues that Quaid violated the license agreement by reverse engineering PROLOK.
* The Software License Enforcement Act is unenforceable.
* The Court rules in favor of Quaid Software Ltd.. The motion for injunction is DENIED.
The actual text of the court decision begins here. Lengthy citations have
been replaced with the phrase (...citations...). A few sections have been abbreviated to
(...synopsis...). All headers, capitalization and punctuation has been entered the same as in
the printed document, as much as HTML allows. The court decision does not appear to be
available elsewhere on the Web, but it can be retrieved from
West Law Publishing for a nominal fee.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
VAULT CORPORATION versus QUAID SOFTWARE LIMITED
Filed Feb 12 3:29 pm '87 Civil Action Clerk NO. 85-2283 SECTION "B"
Plaintiff, Vault Corporation, instituted an action against defendant,
Quaid Software Limited, seeking a permanent injunction and damages. Vault
manufactures certain data security software designed to prevent the copying
of software programs, which is sold under the registered trademark PROLOK.
Quaid has developed a program called "CopyWrite" which unlocks the PROLOK
security software and allows the program contained on the protected diskette
to be copied.
This matter came on for hearing on the motion of plaintiff, Vault Corporation,
for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant, Quaid Software Limited,
from advertising for sale or selling that portion of its CopyWrite Program
that unlocks PROLOK; from violating the PROLOK License agreement; from
misappropriating Vault's trade secret (the PROLOK program); from infringing
or contributorily infringing Vault's copyright of PROLOK; and ordering
the impoundment of all Quaid's copies of CopyWrite that are capable of
unlocking PROLOK. The Court, having heard the testimony at the hearing
and having considered the evidence, the applicable law, the amicus brief,
and the memoranda submitted by the parties, now makes the following findings
of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), as hereafter
set forth.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff, Vault Corporation (hereinafter "Vault" ), is a corporation
organized pursuant to the laws of the State of California and is domiciled
in West Lake Village, California. Plaintiff does business in the State
of Louisiana.
2. Defendant, Quaid Software Limited (hereinafter "Quaid" ), is a corporation
organized under the laws of the Province of Ontario, Canada, and is domiciled
in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
3. Vault manufactures and distributes a line of computer software security
products designed to prevent the copying of programs. Its primary product,
PROLOK, is a program placed on a medium of storage referred to in the computer
trade as a floppy diskette, upon which a "read only memory" (ROM) type
alteration (termed a "hard fingerprint" by Vault) has been made.
4. There are two parts to PROLOK: the software component (program) and
the fingerprint disk (read only memory chip).
5. Vault developed the original commercial version of PROLOK in early
1983. Since 1983 Vault has produced three substantially revised versions
of PROLOK. The first is described as versions 1.01 - 1.06, the second as
version 1.7, and the third as versions 2.0 - 2.01.
6. PROLOK is sold on the open market through retail dealers, through
mail order, and through direct sales to other software manufacturers.
7. The PROLOK diskettes are sold in various
different packages, containing different numbers of diskettes, all of which
indicate that PROLOK is copyrighted. Additionally, the following license
agreement is printed on each package:
IMPORTANT! VAULT IS PROVIDING THE ENCLOSED MATERIALS
TO YOU ON THE EXPRESS CONDITION THAT YOU ASSENT TO THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE.
BY USING ANY OF THE ENCLOSED DISKETTES(S), YOU AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS.
IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE LICENSE PROVISIONS, RETURN THESE MATERIALS
TO YOUR DEALER, IN ORIGINAL PACKAGING WITHIN 3 DAYS FROM RECEIPT, FOR A
REFUND.
1. This copy of the PROLOK Software Protection System and this PROLOK
Software Protection Diskette (the "Licensed Software") are licensed to
you, the end-user, for your own internal use. Title to the Licensed Software
and all copyrights and proprietary rights in the Licensed Software shall
remain with VAULT. You may not transfer, sub-license, rent, lease, convey,
copy, modify, translate, convert to another programming language, decompile
or disassemble the Licensed Software for any purpose without VAULT's prior
written consent.
2. THE LICENSED SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS-IS". VAULT DISCLAIMS
ALL WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND WITH REGARD TO THE LICENSED
SOFTWARE, INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL VAULT BE LIABLE FOR
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL , INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES EVEN IF VAULT
IS APPRISED OF THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCH DAMAGES OCCURRING. SOME STATES DO
NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES, SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
8. On PROLOK version 2.0, the first shipments of which were made on or
about August 27, 1985, the following language was included: To the extent
the laws of the United States of America are not applicable, this license
agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Louisiana.
9 Vault sells blank protected diskettes to software
producers. The software producer places his program on a PROLOK diskette,
and sells the diskette to the public. The user of a program placed on a
PROLOK diskette cannot make a copy of the program that will run independently
of the original PROLOK diskette. The sole purpose of PROLOK is to inhibit
copying of the program by the user.
10. Vault at all times attempted to prevent the general public from
discovering the PROLOK program, method and technology. Their efforts included
encrypting the PROLOK program in four layers of code, separating the various
different programmers working on the program from each other, having all
employees sign nondisclosure agreements prohibiting them from disclosing
any of Vault's secrets, the use of shredding devices at the close of business
each day to shred all paper containing any portion of the PROLOK program,
and keeping the master PROLOK program locked in a safe.
11. Periodically Vault changes PROLOK in order to make it more difficult
to be broken or unlocked.
12. The PROLOK licensing agreement is not necessarily enclosed in the
sale by the software manufacturer to the ultimate user. The user usually
is not aware that the program is on a PROLOK diskette.
13. Vault registered the copyrights of PROLOK versions 1.7 and 2.0 on
August 8, 1985.
14. Defendant, Quaid Software Limited , manufactures
at least three different computer software products and one hardware product.
15. Quaid manufactures a software program called "CopyWrite", which
allows a user to make copies of programs contained on floppy diskettes.
A segment of CopyWrite called "RAMKEY" allows a user to make copies of
software programs placed on a PROLOK disk.
16. The development of CopyWrite took place at Quaid's offices in Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
17. CopyWrite is sold by Quaid primarily through mail order sales solicited
by advertising in national magazines. The shipments are made from Quaid's
offices in Canada.
18. Quaid advertises its products in at least six different personal
computer publications which are distributed in all fifty states, including
Louisiana. These publications include "Personal Computing", "PC Magazine",
"BYTE", "Infoworld", "PC World Magazine", and "PC Tech Journal". In its
advertisements, Quaid solicits direct mail sales of CopyWrite for $50.00
(U.S.) per unit. The advertisements state that CopyWrite is revised monthly
to keep up with the latest in copy protection.
19-21 (...synopsis...) Quaid sells product in Louisiana but does
not maintain any offices or personnel in Louisiana.
22. Quaid has never purchased any PROLOK diskettes in Louisiana. Quaid
has only purchased PROLOK diskettes by mail. These diskettes were received
and used by Quaid solely in Canada.
23. It is an ordinary practice of computer users
to purchase computer software and immediately make archival backup copies
of that software. This is done in order to assure the user that in the
event of mechanical, electrical or physical damage to the software program
or disks, a functional backup copy is available for use.
24. Without the use of CopyWrite or other methods of unlocking PROLOK,
a purchaser of a PROLOK protected software program cannot make a functional
archival copy of that program.
25. Although one can make a "backup" copy of a PROLOK protected software
program without CopyWrite or a similar product, that copy is not workable
in the event that the original PROLOK disk is extensively damaged, destroyed
or lost. The backup copy will operate only as long as the original PROLOK
diskette is in either of the two disk drives of the computer. The backup
copy will not operate by itself.
26. In order to unlock PROLOK protected software programs, Quaid developed
RAMKEY and incorporated it within the CopyWrite product. The means for
creating the RAMKEY program evolved in three different stages. In the first
stage, Quaid developed RAMKEY by analyzing the operation of PROLOK using
Disk Explorer and IBM Debug, two products sold on the open market. this
analysis took place in September or October 1983. The next version of RAMKEY
was developed with information gained through the disassembly and decompilation
of PROLOK. The RAMKEY product developed through this means was discontinued
in July 1984. Subsequently, Quaid developed a new software program known
as "Monitor" which allowed Quaid to analyze the functions of various programs,
including PROLOK, without decompiling or disassembling PROLOK. Quaid developed
an updated version of RAMKEY through this analysis.
27. Vault contends that Quaid made an illegal copy of PROLOK by loading
the PROLOK program into the random access memory (RAM) of Quaid's computer.
However, any person who purchases a PROLOK disk must necessarily load the
PROLOK program into RAM in order to utilize the program.
28. There was no evidence introduced that Quaid has ever made a physical
copy of PROLOK which could be sold or loaned to others.
29. Quaid neither sought nor obtained the permission of Vault to copy,
disassemble, decompile or reverse engineer the PROLOK program.
30. Decompilation and disassembly is the process by which a machine
language program is placed in another programming language which is more
readily understood by human beings. Quaid has neither decompiled nor disassembled
PROLOK since July 1984.
31. Thirty characters within the 1984 PROLOK program were similar to
thirty characters in the 1984 RAMKEY module of the CopyWrite program. This
amounted to one page out of approximately eighty pages.
32. This 1984 version of RAMKEY was discontinued in July 1984. No evidence
was introduced to indicate that there has been any source code common to
PROLOK and RAMKEY since that time.
33. RAMKEY is not a "substantially similar copy" of PROLOK, nor can
it be said that RAMKEY is a "recasting, transformation or adaptation of
PROLOK"
34. A copy of a program placed on a PROLOK
diskette made by using CopyWrite/RAMKEY is a fully operating copy of the
program. It will operate completely independently of the original PROLOK
diskette.
35. CopyWrite/RAMKEY is used to make legitimate archival copies of computer
software programs.
36. CopyWrite is also used as a diagnostic tool for assessing the quality
of computer programs.
37. Another use of CopyWrite is the copying of unprotected programs.
CopyWrite allows the user to make a more accurate copy of the program than
the copy utility programs provided to users by hardware manufacturers.
38. In selling CopyWrite , Quaid takes steps
to prevent the use of CopyWrite for illegal purposes. These steps include:
a) Statements in advertising to the effect that CopyWrite should not be
used for making illegal copies;
b) Statements in the CopyWrite user manuals to the effect that CopyWrite
should not be used for making illegal copies;
c) The incorporation of code within the CopyWrite program which allows
the tracing of any copied programs;
d) Taking steps in prosecuting individuals who were found to be using CopyWrite
to make illegal copies.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1-6 (...synopsis...) Discussion of jurisdiction provided by Louisiana
long-arm statute.
7. Vault claims that jurisdiction exists here under
subsection (4) because Quaid causes injury in Louisiana in at least three
different ways. Plaintiff argues that: 1) Louisiana residents use CopyWrite
to make unauthorized copies of programs produced by Louisiana software
producers; 2) Louisiana residents use CopyWrite to make unauthorized copies
in Louisiana of programs produced in other states; and 3) persons in other
states use CopyWrite to copy programs produced by Louisiana companies.
Vault maintains that Louisiana has a strong interest in redressing the
injury being done to Louisiana software publishers and also to corporations
doing business in Louisiana.
8. Quaid has sold computer software, in particular CopyWrite, in Louisiana.
Vault's claims against Quaid arise from the sale of CopyWrite to users
in Louisiana as well as the other 49 states. These users purchase CopyWrite
to make copies of PROLOK protected disks.
9. Since the Louisiana long-arm statute is to be liberally construed
in favor of finding jurisdiction, this Court concludes that there is a
nexus between sales of CopyWrite in Louisiana and Vault's claims against
Quaid.
10. Vault has moved for an order enjoining Quaid from advertising for
sale or selling that portion of it CopyWrite program that unlocks PROLOK;
from violating the PROLOK License agreement; from misappropriating Vault's
trade secret (the PROLOK Program); and from infringing or contributorily
infringing Vault's copyright on PROLOK. Vault is further seeking impoundment
of all Quaid's copies of CopyWrite that are capable of unlocking PROLOK.
11. In considering a motion for preliminary
injunctive relief, a court must carefully weigh four factors:
1. whether there is a substantial likelihood that movant will prevail on the
merits;
2. whether the movant will suffer irreparable injury if relief is denied;
3. whether the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the threatened harm
the injunction may do to the nonmoving party;
4. whether the granting of the preliminary injunction will be in the public's
interest.
(...citations...)
12. The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction rests in the discretion
of the trial court. (...citations...)
13. A finding against the movant on any of these four factors will justify
the refusal of the preliminary injunctive relief. (...citations...)
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
14. This court will first address the issue of copyright infringement.
In a copyright infringement case, the substantial likelihood of success
on the merits prong of the preliminary injunction test is predominant.
(...citations...)
15. The second factor, that of proving irreparable harm, is generally
not required in copyright litigation. It is presumed once the moving party
has established a case copyright infringement. (...citations...)
16. The third factor, balancing of hardships, is not usually dispositive
in a copyright infringement action. (...citations...)
17. As to the fourth factor, "the public interest can only be served
by upholding copyright protections and, correspondingly, preventing the
misappropriation of the skills, creative energies, and resources which
are invested in the protected work." (...citations...)
18. To establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove ownership
of a valid copyright and "copying" by the defendant of the copyrighted
work. (...citations...)
19. (...synopsis...) Vault owns and has registered the copyrights
to PROLOK.
20. A copyright infringement occurs when a
person violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided
by Sections 106-118 of the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. § 501(a) (1977).
Among the exclusive rights of the copyright owner are the right to reproduce
and to authorize the reproduction of the copyright work in copies, the
right to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work, and
the right to distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public by
sale or lease. 17 U.S.C. § 106 (1977) .
21. Vault claims that Quaid has infringed its copyright
in three different ways:
1. First, Vault claims that Quaid infringes its copyright whenever an employee
of Quaid loads a PROLOK diskette in a personal computer's random access
memory (RAM). By loading the PROLOK program into RAM, Vault claims that
Quaid is making an unauthorized copy of PROLOK;
2. Vault contends that CopyWrite is an unauthorized derivative work of PROLOK;
3. Vault argues that by producing CopyWrite, Quaid is a contributory infringer
because CopyWrite may be used to make an unauthorized copy of copyrighted
software placed on a PROLOK protected diskette.
22. Section 117 of the 1976 Copyright Act provides
as follows:
1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement
for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the
making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
2. that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the
utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that
it is used in no other manner,
3. or that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that
all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession
of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
4. Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section
may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from
which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other
transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred
only with the authorization of the copyright owner.
17 U.S.C. § 117 (1977).
23. Subsection (1) of Section 117 exempts the "copying" of the computer
program which is performed when a program is loaded into computer's random
access memory (RAM). Quaid's actions clearly fall within this exemption.
The loading of the PROLOK program into the RAM of a computer is an "essential
step in the utilization" of the PROLOK program. Therefore, Quaid has not
infringed Vault's copyright by loading PROLOK into RAM.
24. Vault has contended that RAMKEY is a derivative work of PROLOK.
Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines a derivative work as:
A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization,
motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment,
condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed,
or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations,
or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of
authorship, is a "derivative work".
17 U.S.C § 101 (1977).
25. Section 106(2) grants the holder of the copyright the exclusive
right to prepare derivative work. "To constitute a violation of section
106(2) the infringing work must incorporate in some form a portion of the
copyrighted work.." (..citations...) The allegedly infringing work must
be a "substantially similar copy" of the original work.
26. There is no substantial similarity between CopyWrite and PROLOK.
In 1984 thirty characters of RAMKEY were copied from PROLOK. Quaid discontinued
this version of RAMKEY that same year. Since that time there has been no
evidence to convince this Court that there has been any further duplication.
The Court finds that the copying in 1984 was not significant.
27. There has been no violation of 17 U.S.C. 106(2) because RAMKEY is
not a substantially similar copy of PROLOK. RAMKEY is not a derivative
work of PROLOK.
28. Vault has contended that Quaid is guilty contributory infringement
because CopyWrite permits a user to make illegal copies of programs placed
on PROLOK disks. Vault lacks standing to raise such a claim since it is
not Vault, but the customers of Vault who place their programs on PROLOK
disks, who may assert such claims. Clearly, the copyright rights to these
underlying programs belong to their publishers, not Vault.
29. Even if Vault has standing to pursue a
claim for contributory infringement, this Court finds no contributory infringement.
30. The Copyright Act does not expressly hold one liable for infringement
committed by another. (...citations...) However, "the absence of such express
language in the copyright statute does not preclude the imposition of liability
for copyright infringements on certain parties who have not themselves
engaged in the infringing activity." (...citations...)
31. In a contributory infringement case, the Court is "to look beyond
actual duplication of a device or publication to the products or activities
that make such duplication possible (...citations...)
32. CopyWrite, however, does not contributorily infringe PROLOK if it
is capable of "commercially significant noninfringing uses."
33. Quaid claims that CopyWrite is capable
of "commercially significant noninfringing uses", such as making archival
copies of software programs as allowed by Section 117(2) of the Copyright
Act. The archival copies which PROLOK provides are not functional, those
copies made by CopyWrite are functional. In addition, there was testimony
at trial that CopyWrite is used make copies of unprotected software because
CopyWrite makes a better copy than IBM DOS Copy, the copy utility supplied
with all IBM personal computers. CopyWrite is also used as a diagnostic utility.
|