Since 20-20 has offered a list of specifically protected elements, this Court need not engage in the abstraction process described in Altai and eschewed in Lotus. See MiTek Holdings v. Arce Eng’g Co., 89 F.3d 1548, 1555 (11th Cir.1996) (“[I]f the copyright holder presents the court with a list of features that it believes to be protectable …, the court need not abstract further such features.”); ILOG, Inc. v. Bell Logic, 181 F.Supp.2d 3, 11 (D.Mass.2002) (declining to “abstract” and proceeding to “filter” when parties identified elements of a computer program that were allegedly copied). Nevertheless, sitting in a Lotus position, the Court must read Altai through the lens of Lotus and thus filter out elements based on § 102(b) before filtering on the basis of merger, scenes a faire, or public domain.

Analysis

The Court found that many of the elements of the program design did not merit copyright protection when viewed in isolation. The Court however found that a compilation of the individual components, as viewed on the screen display, was protectible. The Court also found that a particular dialog box that enabled users to specify characteristics of kitchen items placed into a design was copyrightable as a compilation of factual information (based on unique selection and arrangement).

Individual components that were found to be in the public domain when not evaluated as part of a compilation

• The sequence of sub-windows on the left side of the screen: information box, edit box, hierarchical catalog box, drag and drop listing, and search box.

• The items in various dialog boxes.

• “Save as Image” function.

• A row of command categories on the top of the screen display (File, Edit, View, Place, Project, Design, Notes, Dimensions, Render, Preferences, Window, and Help).

• The ability to add notes via a dialog box.

• Three methods used to add a wall. One of the methods was consisted of using a menu command function; a second, pressing a button on a toolbar.

• An “idiosyncratic” sequence of mouse clicks through which a user could draw walls (regardless of the novelty of the sequence).

• The ability to terminate a wall sequence through a single left mouse click behind the most recent wall drawn.

• An edit box and default room configuration users can use to create walls.

• A submenu that allows a user to move, rotate, extrude, and delete a wall.

• A dialog box that allows users to modify the appearance of a wall or a placement zone.

• A drop and drag method of placing items such as cabinets; a method through which a user can select an item from a list and click “place”; and a method through which a user can input coordinates.

• Two means through which a user could resize windows and doors Options for editing countertops, e.g, “Add Bevel,” “Notch,” and “Rotate.”

Apple won a thorough victory on Friday in its suit against Pystar Corp.  Apple distributed its Mac OS X operating system under a license where customers were contractually precluded from using the operating system on non-Apple computers. Psystar modified Apple’s operating system to run on computers that it sold. In the motion at bar, Apple was granted summary judgment on a series of claims, including direct infringement, contributory infringement, and violation of the DMCA. The Court also rejected Psystar’s 117 defense, copyright and trademark fair use defenses, and copyright misuse defense.

Apple’s remaining claims left for trial are (1) breach of contract; (2) induced breach of contract, (3) trademark infringement; (4) trademark dilution; (5) trade dress infringement; and (6) state unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code § 17200; and (7) common law unfair competition.