This article examines how software copyright courts deal with the challenges posed by computer technology in their application and modification of rules regarding scientific evidence, especially in their choice between alternative ways for admitting and evaluating scientific knowledge and testimony. In the face of a technological challenge, courts are more likely to depend on external sources of technical authority. In this process, the conceptualization of what is science and scientific knowledge is constructed in a way that acknowledges expert testimony rather than layperson opinion and a computer developer's knowledge and skills rather than a user's knowledge and experience
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Black,B., F. J. Ayala, and C. Saffran-Brinks. 1994. Science and the law in the wake of Daubert: A new search for scientific knowledge. Texas Law Review72:622-678.
2.
Busek, J. R.1998. Copyright infringement: A proposal for a new standard for substantial similarity based on the degree of possible expressive variation. UCLA Law Review45:1777-1803.
3.
Collins, H. M.1985. Changing order. London: Sage.
4.
Coulter, J. D.1995. Computers, copyright and substantial similarity: The test reconsidered. John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law14:47-71.
5.
Davis, D. L.1985. The “shotgun wedding” of science and law: Risk assessment and judicial review. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law10:67-98.
6.
Deason, E. E.1998. Court-appointed expert witnesses: Scientific positivism meets bias and deference. Oregon Law Review77:59-91.
7.
Foster, K. R., and P. W. Huber. 1999. Judging science: Scientific knowledge and the federal courts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
Holmes, J. C.2001. Book review of legal alchemy: The use and misuse of science in the law. Federal Lawyer48:68-71.
9.
Huber, P. W.1993. Galileo's revenge: Junk science in the courtroom. New York: Basic Books.
10.
Jasanoff, S.1995. Science at the bar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
Jenkins, J. A.1983. Experts' day in court. New York Times Magazine, 11 December.
12.
Kantrowitz, A.1977. The science court experiment. Jurimetrics Journal17:332-342.
13.
Kuhn, T.1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
Latour, B.1987. Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
McCormick, C. T.1972. McCormick's handbook of the law of evidence. 2d ed.St. Paul, MN: West.
17.
Nelkin, D.1998. A just measure of science. In Science in court, edited by M. Freeman and H. Reece, 11-36. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
18.
Richardson, J. R.1974. Modern scientific evidence: Civil, and criminal. 2d ed.Cincinnati, OH: W. H. Anderson Co..
19.
Roberts, P.1998. Expert evidence in Canadian criminal proceedings. In Law and science, edited by H. Reece, 175-220. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
20.
Sitzer, M. F.1981. Note, copyright infringement actions: The roper role for audience reactions in determining substantial similarity. Southern California Law Review54:385-405.
21.
Smith, M. C.2001. The effect of Kumho Tire and amended federal rule of evidence 702 on Daubert challenge procedure. ATLA-CLE (winter): 455-466.
22.
Smith, R., and B. Wynne, eds. 1989. Expert evidence: Interpreting science in the law. London: Routledge.
23.
Smoger, G. H.2001. From rule 702 toDaubert toJoiner toKumhoTire: A review of the Supreme Court's analysis of the admissibility of expert testimony. ATLA-CLE (winter): 467-478.
24.
Ward, T.1998. Law's truth, lay truth and medical science. In Law and science, edited by H. Reece, 243-264. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25.
Whitfield, Hon. J. H.2001. An overview of the test for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence: Frye, Daubert, and Kumho. ATLA-CLE (winter): 295-300.
26.
Wivel, M. K.2001. The Federal Judicial Center's reference manual on scientific evidence. ATLA-CLE (winter): 479-499.
27.
Yellin, J.1983. Science, technology, and administrative government: Institutional designs for environmental decisionmaking. Yale Law Journal92:1300-1333.
28.
Yen, A. C.1998. Copyright opinions and aesthetic theory. Southern California Law Review71:247-302.
29.
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp, 714 F. 2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1033 (1984).
30.
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 799 F. Supp. 1006 (N.D.Cal. 1992).
31.
Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F. 2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946), cert. denied, 330 U.S. 851 (1947).
32.
Atari Game Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 975 F. 2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
33.
Atari, Inc. and Midway Mfg. Co. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp., et. al., 672 F. 2d 607 (7th Cir. 1982).
34.
Autoskill, Inc. v. National Educational Support Systems Inc., 93 F. Supp. 1557 (D.N.M. 1992).
35.
Broderbund Software, Inc. v. Unison World, Inc., 648 F. Supp. 1127 (D.C.A. 1986).
36.
Computer Associates International v. Altai, Inc., 775 F. Supp. 544 (E.D.N.Y. 1991).
37.
Computer Associates International v. Altai, Inc., 982 F. 2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992).
Dawson v. Hinshaw Music, Inc., 905 F. 2d 731 (4th Cir. 1990).
40.
Digital Communications Association v. Softklone Distributing Corp., 659 F. Supp. 449 (N.D.Ga. 1987).
41.
E. F. Johnson Co. v. Uniden Corporation, 623 F. Supp. 1485 (D. Minn. 1985).
42.
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
43.
Integral Systems, Inc. v. Peoplesoft, Inc., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20878 (D.C.A.).
44.
The Gates Rubber Company v. Bando American, Inc., et al., 798 F. Supp. 1499 (D.C.O. 1992).
45.
Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Phoenix Control Systems, Inc., et al., 886 F. 2d 1173 (9th Cir. 1989); 12 U.S.P.Q. 2D (BNA) 1566; Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P26, 479.
46.
Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Patrick Carmichael, et. al.,199 S. Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d. 238 (1999).
47.
Manufactures Technologies, Inc. v. CALS, Inc., et al., 706 F. Supp. 984 (D.C.T. 1989).
48.
Micro Consulting v. Zubeldia, 813 F. Supp. 1514 (W.D. Okl. 1990).
49.
Midway Mfg. Co. v. Dale Dirkschneider, et al., 543 F. Supp. 466 (D.N.B. 1981).
50.
Miller v. Universal City Studios, 650 F. 2d 1365 (5th Cir. 1981).
51.
NEC v. Intel, Copy. L. Dec. par. 26,379 (N.D. Cal. 1989).
52.
Nichols v Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F. 2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930).
53.
Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Bay Coin Distributors, Inc., et al., Copy. L. Rep. par. 25.409 (D.N.Y. 1982).
54.
Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card. Co., 429 F. 2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1970).
55.
Sid & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F. 2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977).
56.
Soft Computer Consultants, Inc. v. Shahram Lalehzaradeh, etc., Copy. L. Dec. par. 26,403 (E.D.N.Y. 1988).
57.
Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman, 669 F. 2d 852 (2d Cir. 1982).
58.
Telemarketing Resources, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., et al., 12 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1991 (D.C.A. 1989).
59.
Warner Brothers v. American Broadcasting Cos., 654 F. 2d 204 (2d Cir. 1981).
60.
Whelan Associates v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc., 797 F. 2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1031 (1987).
