throbber
Case: 3:16-cv-00122-jdp Document #: 134 Filed: 03/27/18 Page 1 of 19
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATACARRIER S.A.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`WOCCU SERVICES GROUP, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`OPINION & ORDER
`
`16-cv-122-jdp
`
`This is a copyright infringement dispute over transactional switch software, which is a
`
`component of a payment processing system. Plaintiff Datacarrier S.A. alleges that the copyright
`
`to its switch software is infringed by the switch software owned by defendant WOCCU Services
`
`Group, Inc. (WSG).
`
`WSG moves for summary judgment. Dkt. 68. Datacarrier’s switch software is written
`
`in the Cobol programming language, whereas WSG’s is written in Java. There is no genuine
`
`dispute that WSG has not literally copied any of Datacarrier’s source code. But that leaves the
`
`possibility that WSG might have copied some other aspect of Datacarrier’s software, so that
`
`the two programs are nevertheless substantially similar. Datacarrier contends that WSG has
`
`copied three aspects of its software: two message formats used to communicate information
`
`about transactions and certain ATM configuration information.
`
`The court concludes that the two message formats are not independently copyrightable
`
`because they are derived from pre-existing industry standards, the particular implementation
`
`of those standards is driven by functional considerations, and the formats are the digital
`
`equivalents of blank fill-in forms, which have long been regarded as not copyrightable. The
`
`ATM configuration information is not part of the switch software, and thus it is not copied by
`
`

`

`Case: 3:16-cv-00122-jdp Document #: 134 Filed: 03/27/18 Page 2 of 19
`
`WSG’s switch software. Because these three aspects of the switch software are the only
`
`substantial points of similarity asserted by Datacarrier, the court will grant summary judgment
`
`to WSG and close this case. The court will deny as moot WSG’s motion in limine to exclude
`
`certain evidence from trial. Dkt. 128.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Except where noted, the following facts are undisputed. Additional facts will be
`
`provided where pertinent to the analysis.
`
`A. The parties
`
`Plaintiff Datacarrier S.A., is an Ecuadorian software company, which owns transactional
`
`switch software called TID, the copyrighted work asserted in this case. The TID source code is
`
`registered with the United States Copyright Office, Registration No. TX-7-946-574, effective
`
`December 15, 2014. Datacarrier is affiliated (though exactly how is disputed) with a
`
`Guatemalan software company, Servicios Tecnologicos de Guatemala S.A. (ServiTech).
`
`Defendant WOCCU Services Group, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, provides services
`
`to credit unions in Latin America. WSG has provided transactional switch services to its
`
`affiliates in Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Mexico. WSG’s transactional switch software, which
`
`Datacarrier alleges infringes its copyright, is called Entura.
`
`B. Technical background
`
`Transactional switch software is used to process financial transactions, such as a cash
`
`withdrawal from an ATM or a credit card purchase at a store. For purposes of illustration, we
`
`will stick with the ATM withdrawal example. Such a transaction involves a network that
`
`connects the ATM from which a card holder would like to withdraw cash to the financial
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 3:16-cv-00122-jdp Document #: 134 Filed: 03/27/18 Page 3 of 19
`
`institution that holds the account and issued the debit card. The network requires
`
`communication of the transaction request to the financial institution and communication of
`
`the response from the financial institution back to the ATM. The parties use the diagram below
`
`to illustrate the pertinent components of the network. The three points of similarity on which
`
`Datacarrier bases its allegations of infringement are identified in the diagram as “NDC code,”
`
`“intra-switch messages,” and “switch-to-host messages.”
`
`The switch software runs on the “central server.” The entity that operates the ATM, and thus
`
`receives requests from a card users, is referred to as the “acquirer.” The financial institution
`
`that maintains the account and determines whether to approve the request is referred to as the
`
`“authorizer,” the “host,” or the “issuer.”
`
`The switch software routes messages between the ATM and the authorizer. If the card
`
`user’s account is with the same financial institution that operates the ATM network, that
`
`financial institution’s local switch (essentially a local network server) handles the request. But
`
`if the user’s account is elsewhere—that is, if the acquirer and the authorizer are different
`
`institutions—then the transactional switch on the central server transmits the request to the
`
`authorizer’s server. Thus, to work effectively, the switch software must communicate with
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 3:16-cv-00122-jdp Document #: 134 Filed: 03/27/18 Page 4 of 19
`
`different ATM networks and with different financial institutions. The communications to the
`
`local switches operating ATM networks are called “intra-switch messages” and the
`
`communications to financial institutions are calls “switch-to-host messages.”
`
`The International Organization for Standardization developed the ISO 8583 standard
`
`to facilitate transactional switching among financial systems. There are three versions of ISO
`
`8583, identified by the year of their release: 1987, 1993, and 2003. ISO 8583 defines a
`
`common standard for message formatting with a library of more than 100 data fields. Financial
`
`networks typically adapt and customize the data fields in the ISO 8583 standard to the needs
`
`of their networks and the institutions that use them.
`
`C. Development of the parties’ switch software
`
`In 2009, a company called Multisoft developed transaction switch software called
`
`Sharing. ServiTech supplied Sharing switch software to WSG, which sublicensed Sharing to its
`
`affiliated ATM-network operators in Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Mexico. Datacarrier provided
`
`Sharing-related maintenance and technical support to ServiTech’s customers.
`
`Sharing had technical problems, so Datacarrier developed a replacement—the TID
`
`switch software. One of the programmers who worked on TID was a former Multisoft
`
`employee, Maria Fernanda Martinez. At some point, Multisoft’s assets were liquidated in an
`
`Ecuadoran legal proceeding, and the Multisoft programmers ended up owning the Sharing
`
`software. Martinez had developed a format for switch-to-host messages for Sharing, and she
`
`used that switch-to-host message format in TID. Martinez assigned her ownership interest in
`
`the switch-to-host message format to Datacarrier. TID is written in the Cobol programming
`
`language.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 3:16-cv-00122-jdp Document #: 134 Filed: 03/27/18 Page 5 of 19
`
`WSG agreed to offer TID to its affiliates. Datacarrier licensed TID to ServiTech, and
`
`ServiTech sublicensed it to WSG and its affiliates. But TID had its own problems, and only
`
`one of WSG’s affiliates—RTC in Ecuador—successfully converted to it. The parties blame each
`
`other for the problems with TID, but that the dispute is immaterial to this case.
`
`There was another alternative to Sharing. A Peruvian company, Kuskanet, developed
`
`new switch software (which later would be renamed Entura) to address problems that Kuskanet
`
`had had with Sharing. The primary programmer was Edwin Ayala, a Kuskanet engineer, who
`
`wrote the program in the Java programming language. Ayala began developing Entura in 2010
`
`and it was operational in mid-2011, about the same time as TID was ready for commercial use.
`
`Neither Ayala nor anyone on his team had access to the TID program’s source code. See Dkt.
`
`64. But at some point after Entura was operational, Ayala saw TID in operation at WSG’s
`
`Ecuadoran affiliate, RTC. Ayala also got a copy of a Datacarrier document—referred to by the
`
`parties as the Intercambio Document—that describes the TID program’s format for switch-to-
`
`host messages. Both TID and Entura use this format, although WSG denies that Ayala made
`
`any use of the Intercambio Document in creating Entura, because Ayala received it only after
`
`Entura was operational.
`
`In early 2012, Steven Schaefer, WSG’s technology manager, visited Kuskanet to
`
`evaluate Entura as a potential replacement for Sharing and TID. WSG decided to stop using
`
`the TID program and acquire the Entura switch software from Kuskanet. Dkt. 110, ¶ 115.
`
`After WSG acquired Entura, it stored the source code on servers in the United States. Entura
`
`is actually used, however, outside the United States in the countries where WSG’s affiliates
`
`operate.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 3:16-cv-00122-jdp Document #: 134 Filed: 03/27/18 Page 6 of 19
`
`Datacarrier applied for registration of the TID program with the United States
`
`Copyright Office on December 12, 2014. On February 26, 2016, Datacarrier filed this suit
`
`alleging that WSG infringes the TID copyright by storing or using Entura in the United States.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`To maintain its copyright infringement claim, Datacarrier must prove two elements:
`
`“(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that
`
`are original.” Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). And, as the
`
`court decided in an earlier order, the infringing acts must take place in the United States. Dkt.
`
`39. Thus, Datacarrier’s infringement allegations must be based on Entura software that is kept
`
`and used in the United States, not on versions of Entura used in Latin America.
`
`The parties agree that TID and Entura are written in dissimilar programming languages,
`
`Cobol and Java respectively, and thus there has been no literal copying of the TID source code.
`
`Datacarrier’s expert, Howard Cohen, verified this by using code comparison software, although
`
`he did not include these results in his report. Dkt. 110, ¶¶ 73-75.
`
`The use of different programming languages would not necessarily preclude substantial
`
`similarity in non-literal aspects of two computer programs. Consider, for example, the code for
`
`a video game. One could completely re-write the code in a different programming language,
`
`and yet closely copy the imagery and narrative structure of the game. The actual code of the
`
`two programs would be completely dissimilar, but the two programs would nevertheless be
`
`substantially similar in imagery and narrative structure. In that example, the non-literal aspects
`
`of the game—imagery and narrative structure—clearly constitute aspects of original authorship
`
`protected by copyright. But this case involves software that is more routinely functional than
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 3:16-cv-00122-jdp Document #: 134 Filed: 03/27/18 Page 7 of 19
`
`a video game, so its non-literal features do not necessarily constitute aspects of original
`
`authorship.
`
`With literal copying of the code off the table, it is incumbent on Datacarrier, as the
`
`party with the burden of proof on its copyright claim, to identify the basis for its allegation
`
`that Entura copies protected aspects of TID. Datacarrier cites three points of similarity that it
`
`contends support a finding of infringement: (1) the ATM configuration information that
`
`Datacarrier calls “NDC code,” (2) the format of switch-to-host messages; and (3) the format
`
`of intra-switch messages. WSG moves for summary judgment on the basis that the first of these
`
`is not actually part of Entura, and the two message formats are not copyrightable.
`
`Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party “shows that there is no genuine
`
`dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 56(a). “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the
`
`governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
`
`Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In reviewing WSG’s motion for summary judgment, the court
`
`must construe the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in Datacarrier’s favor. Id. at 255.
`
`A. Preliminary evidentiary issues
`
`Before turning to the merits, the court begins with some evidentiary issues.
`
`The first issues relate to the opinions of Maria Fernanda Martinez, a Datacarrier
`
`employee and one of the programmers who wrote Sharing and TID. Datacarrier proffers
`
`Martinez both as a fact witness and as an expert with “extensive training and experience in
`
`computer programming and software design and maintenance.” Dkt. 97, ¶ 1. WSG asks the
`
`court to exclude Martinez’s expert testimony. Dkt. 108, at 2–9. The court will exclude her
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 3:16-cv-00122-jdp Document #: 134 Filed: 03/27/18 Page 8 of 19
`
`expert opinions, particularly her infringement analysis. But the court will consider Martinez’s
`
`testimony as a fact witness.
`
`The first reason Martinez cannot provide expert testimony is that she has not disclosed
`
`an expert report that complies with Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Datacarrier apparently assumed that
`
`because Martinez is a Datacarrier employee rather than a retained expert, she did not have to
`
`serve a full expert report. Accordingly, Datacarrier served only a summary of her opinions, in
`
`the form of a 164-page document that looks like a PowerPoint presentation that might
`
`accompany live testimony. But that document does not comply with the court’s pretrial order,
`
`which requires that “[a]ny employee of a party who will be offering expert opinions during any
`
`phase of this case must comply with the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B).” Dkt. 24, at 2. As
`
`WSG’s computer code expert, Daniel Milstein, points out, Dkt. 79-3, at 32, Martinez’s
`
`summary is hard to follow and it is difficult to understand exactly what her opinions are. The
`
`summary document that Martinez provided simply does not make much sense on its own.
`
`Summaries of expert testimony tend to lead to disputes about whether the expert has properly
`
`disclosed her opinions, which is why the court requires a full written report from employee
`
`experts.
`
`The second reason that the court will exclude Martinez’s expert opinion is that her
`
`infringement analysis relies on an unauthenticated copy of Entura, which she acquired from
`
`Datacarrier, which acquired it from a criminal investigation in Ecuador. Purportedly, the copy
`
`came from a WSG affiliate, RTC. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 703, an expert can
`
`sometimes base a reliable opinion on evidence that would be inadmissible on its own, if it is
`
`the type of evidence that experts in that field would typically rely on. But no reasonable
`
`copyright infringement analysis could be based on copy of the accused work with such
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 3:16-cv-00122-jdp Document #: 134 Filed: 03/27/18 Page 9 of 19
`
`questionable provenance. We simply don’t know how the RTC copy of Entura was collected
`
`or what it includes. We know that it is not the same as the Entura copy maintained in the
`
`United States. Through discovery in this case, Datacarrier and its retained expert, Howard
`
`Cohen, had access to an authenticated copy of WSG’s Entura program as maintained in the
`
`United States. Martinez did not. So her opinions about whether Entura infringes TID are not
`
`based on reliable information. Finally, any admissible component of Martinez’s infringement
`
`opinions would be cumulative of Cohen’s opinions anyway. The bottom line is that the court
`
`will consider Martinez’s fact testimony only.
`
`The problems with the RTC code also affect the opinions of Howard Cohen,
`
`Datacarrier’s infringement expert. Cohen relies on the RTC code for two aspects of his analysis.
`
`First, Cohen relies on the RTC copy of Entura for his analysis of whether Entura’s NDC Code
`
`is copied from TID. Cohen acknowledges that the NDC Code is stored in a database separate
`
`from the switch software itself. The switch software pulls the NDC Code from the database
`
`and then loads it onto the ATM. Cohen therefore did not find WSG’s NDC Code in the Entura
`
`software that he got through discovery from WSG. Rather, he contends that he was able to
`
`derive WSG’s NDC Code from the code that was given to Datacarrier by the Ecuadoran police:
`
`Files collected by the Ecuadorian police in their investigation of
`RTC (WSG's Ecuadorian affiliate) were provided to me. These
`included a number of such log files. Using the same one the police
`used in their analysis, I was able to extract the Entura NDC code
`in order to compare it with the Datacarrier NDC code.
`
`In particular, I used the log file 23202.log, also used by Ing. Jaime
`Padilla [the Ecuadoran investigator] in his report (pp. 18-19).
`
`Dkt. 78-13, ¶¶ 7-8. Cohen’s analysis of WSG’s NDC Code is, like Martinez’s infringement
`
`analysis, predicated on an unauthenticated copy of code purportedly obtained from RTC. The
`
`court deems Cohen’s analysis of Entura’s use of NDC Code unreliable and inadmissible. And
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 3:16-cv-00122-jdp Document #: 134 Filed: 03/27/18 Page 10 of 19
`
`even if the court considered this part of Cohen’s testimony, the most that it would show is that
`
`in operation, Entura moves the NDC Code from a database to an ATM. This does not establish
`
`that WSG has a copy of the NDC Code in the United States.
`
`Second, Cohen uses the RTC copy of Entura in his analysis of the switch-to-host
`
`message format. In Exhibit F to his report, he explains that he based his analysis of the switch-
`
`to-host message format on the RTC copy of Entura:
`
`In the Entura code collected by the Ecuadorian police the java
`archive (jar) file
`
`…/Codigo Fuente/SWITCH_ENTURA/WebContent/WE
`BINF/lib/Tramaiso8583.jar
`
`contains a compiled class, TramaSwitchHost. Using tools
`available on the web, this archive file was decompiled and the
`source code for this class reconstructed.
`
`Dkt. 78-16, ¶ 16 (footnote omitted). Although Cohen contends that he “made reference to”
`
`parts of the Entura code as produced by WSG (Dkt. 78-16, ¶ 23), he does not explain how
`
`that version of Entura mattered in his analysis. He used a file reconstructed from the RTC code
`
`to conclude that Entura used the same data fields and names as used in the TID switch-to-host
`
`message format. So the foundation of Cohen’s analysis is, again, the unauthenticated code from
`
`RTC.
`
`Cohen’s analysis of the switch-to-host message format has another problem. Cohen
`
`acknowledges that the intra-switch message format is based on ISO 8583. Cohen contended
`
`that TID had significantly customized the ISO 8583 standard, but he mistakenly compared
`
`TID to the 2003 version of ISO 8583. He had missed that TID actually used the 1993 version,
`
`so his opinions about the degree of customization are unreliable and thus inadmissible.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 3:16-cv-00122-jdp Document #: 134 Filed: 03/27/18 Page 11 of 19
`
`(Datacarrier sought to submit an untimely supplemental report to correct this error, but the
`
`court did not allow it. Dkt. 125.)
`
`To sum up the evidentiary rulings: the court will consider Martinez’s fact evidence, but
`
`it will exclude her expert opinions; the court will exclude any analysis based on the
`
`unauthenticated RTC version of Entura; and the court will exclude Cohen’s analysis of the
`
`switch-to-host message format.
`
`B. Infringement analysis
`
`In cases involving computer software, many courts analyze infringement with the
`
`“abstraction-filtration-comparison” approach first described in Computer Associates International,
`
`Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992). Melville B. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright §
`
`13.09 (Matthew Bender ed. 2005) (the abstraction-filtration-comparison is the “dominant,
`
`albeit not universal, standard”). In brief, the court begins by parsing the allegedly infringed
`
`program into its constituent parts, isolating the level of abstraction of each part. The court then
`
`filters out the protectable elements of expression from the unprotectable ideas and functions.
`
`Finally, the court compares the core of protectable expression in the original work to the alleged
`
`infringing work, to determine whether enough of the protectable core has been copied to make
`
`the two works substantially similar.
`
`The abstraction-filtration-comparison approach has not been endorsed by the Seventh
`
`Circuit Court of Appeals, although at least one district court in the circuit has used it. See, e.g.,
`
`Nikish Software Corp. v. Manatron, Inc., No. 2010 WL 5099281 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010).
`
`Regardless of the status of that approach in this circuit, the court need not apply it directly in
`
`this case, because the parties have already identified the specific elements at issue. In essence,
`
`abstraction is done because Datacarrier has identified the three particular points of similarity
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 3:16-cv-00122-jdp Document #: 134 Filed: 03/27/18 Page 12 of 19
`
`between TID and Entura. And comparison is unnecessary, because for purposes of this motion,
`
`the court will assume the Entura uses the same NDC Code and message formats as TID. What’s
`
`left is, essentially, filtration: the court must determine whether the three asserted points of
`
`similarity are part of the core of protected expression in TID.
`
`1. NDC Code
`
`Datacarrier alleges that one point of similarity between TID and Entura is that they
`
`both use the same data to configure ATM machines that connect to transactional switch
`
`software. Datacarrier refers to this data as “NDC Code.” WSG contends that this data is more
`
`accurately referred to as ATM “customization data.” The terminological dispute is not material;
`
`the parties agree about what this data is and how it is used. To keep things clear, the court will
`
`follow Datacarrier and use the term NDC Code (although the court agrees that it would be
`
`more accurate to call it customization data).
`
`NDC Code is used to configure an ATM that connects to the network through which
`
`the transaction will be processed. NDC is an abbreviation for NCR Direct Connect, which is
`
`an ATM transaction protocol developed by NCR Corporation. NCR has a software suite called
`
`NCR Aptra, which facilitates the programming and management of ATMs. The Aptra manual
`
`is the source of Cohen’s information about how NDC Code works. As WSG points out, the
`
`Aptra manual refers to the ATM configuration data as “customization data,” which is
`
`appropriate because the purpose of the NDC Code is to configure the ATM to operate in a
`
`certain way.
`
`There is no genuine dispute that the NDC Code is not part of the switch software itself.
`
`Rather, as the parties’ experts agree, the switch software pulls the NDC Code from a database,
`
`and then loads the NDC Code to the ATM that is accessing the network. WSG has shown that
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 3:16-cv-00122-jdp Document #: 134 Filed: 03/27/18 Page 13 of 19
`
`the Entura switch source code does not include NDC code. See Dkt. 110, ¶ 22 (citing Dkt. 79-
`
`3, ¶ 23 and Dkt. 61 (Cohen Dep. 70:5-8)). For reasons that are not entirely clear, the TID
`
`deposit material (submitted in support of Datacarrier’s copyright registration) included two
`
`pages of NDC Code. But Cohen did not find this NDC Code anywhere in the Entura software
`
`as it was maintained in the United States. Dkt. 61 (Cohen Dep., 56:25–57:7).
`
`Datacarrier argues that Entura is substantially similar to TID because they both use
`
`NDC Code in the same way, and they both use the same NDC Code. It’s apparent that any
`
`network that uses an ATM that has been configured using NCR Direct Connect will have to
`
`use NDC Code substantially in the way that both TID and Entura use it. That much is built
`
`into the way NCR’s ATM configuration software works. So the fact that both Entura and TID
`
`pull NDC Code from a database and pass it on to the ATM cannot be the basis for any
`
`copyright infringement claim against WSG.
`
`The claim that both TID and Entura use the same NDC Code fails for the evidentiary
`
`reasons discussed above: Cohen reaches this conclusion solely on his analysis of the
`
`unauthenticated RTC code. But even if both TID and Entura did both use the same NDC
`
`Code, WSG has not shown that NDC Code is actually part of the switch software. Cohen tries
`
`to describe the NDC Code in a way that makes it appear to be a form of source code, but his
`
`explanation makes clear that NDC Code is produced when someone uses NCR Aptra software
`
`to set up the configuration of an ATM. Some of this code was included in the TID deposit
`
`material, but Cohen did not find this NDC Code in the Entura source code maintained in the
`
`United States.
`
`The court concludes that Datacarrier cannot base a viable copyright infringement claim
`
`on Entura’s use of NDC Code because the NDC Code is not part of the core of protectable
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 3:16-cv-00122-jdp Document #: 134 Filed: 03/27/18 Page 14 of 19
`
`expression in TID. And the Entura code as maintained in the United States does not include
`
`NDC Code anyway.
`
`2. Message formats
`
`Entura and TID use the same format for communications with ATM systems and with
`
`financial institutions, which are referred to as intra-switch messaging and switch-to-host
`
`messaging respectively. Datacarrier contends that these message formats are points of
`
`substantial similarity that support an infringement claim against WSG.
`
`WSG contends that the message formats are not copyrightable elements of the switch
`
`software because they are not truly original to Datacarrier and they lack enough creativity to
`
`constitute authorship. WSG pitches its argument in terms of the doctrines of merger and scènes
`
`à faire. “The merger doctrine reflects the principle that where the expression is essential to the
`
`statement of the idea, or where there is only one way or very few ways of expressing the idea,
`
`the idea and the expression ‘merge’ into an unprotectable whole.” Woods, 725 F. Supp. 2d at
`
`821. If the expression merges with the idea, the expression is not protectable. Altai, 982 F.2d
`
`at 708. Scènes à faire are “incidents, characters or settings which are as a practical matter
`
`indispensable, or at least standard, in the treatment of a given topic.” Incredible Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Virtual Techs., Inc., 400 F.3d 1007, 1012 (7th Cir. 2005). These are creditable arguments, and
`
`the Second Circuit Court of Appeals invoked the doctrines of merger and scènes à faire in its
`
`explication of the filtration step in Computer Associates. But here the court undertakes a more
`
`direct evaluation of the originality and creativity of the data formats.
`
`Datacarrier contends that the TID message formats are copyrightable as “data
`
`structures.” Datacarrier relies chiefly on Assessment Techs. of WI, LLC v. WIREdata, Inc., 350
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 3:16-cv-00122-jdp Document #: 134 Filed: 03/27/18 Page 15 of 19
`
`F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2003), for the proposition that data structures are copyrightable.1 But that
`
`is not what the Court of Appeals held in Assessment Technologies. The case involved a computer
`
`program for real estate assessment called Market Drive, which compiled information about real
`
`property and organized it into 456 fields arranged into 34 categories. Some municipalities used
`
`Market Drive to assist in assessing property, but the underlying data were in the public domain
`
`and not copyrightable. On appeal, the defendant, WIREdata, contended that the Market Drive
`
`software was itself uncopyrightable. The Court of Appeals promptly dismissed that idea,
`
`holding that Market Drive was sufficiently original because no other real estate assessment
`
`program had arranged real estate date into those specific 456 fields grouped into those specific
`
`34 categories. The main issue in the case was whether WIREdata could obtain the underlying
`
`data without infringing the copyright in Market Drive. The court held that WIREdata could
`
`obtain the underlying data, even if the only way to obtain it would involve copying the Market
`
`Drive data structure. Id. at 645. Assessment Technologies does not hold that every “data structure”
`
`is copyrightable (and it’s not clear that the data structure would have been copyrightable apart
`
`from the software that used it).
`
`The message formats in TID are distinguishable from the elaborate data structure in
`
`Assessment Technologies for several reasons. First, the message formats in TID are far simpler. The
`
`format for switch-to-host messages comprises only 24 fields, and each field has only three
`
`characteristics—name, length, and data type. The message format for intra-switch messages is
`
`
`1 Datacarrier cites half a dozen additional district court cases in a footnote. Dkt. 91, at 24 n.16.
`The court would not have to consider these cases at all—Datacarrier includes only a brief
`parenthetical comment on each, without analysis to show how their reasoning would be useful
`to this case. But the court has reviewed the cases. They repeat the basic principles applied in
`this opinion, and together they show that the copyrightability of data structure, as a non-literal
`aspect of a computer program, demands a careful fact-intensive inquiry.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 3:16-cv-00122-jdp Document #: 134 Filed: 03/27/18 Page 16 of 19
`
`also relatively simple. According to Cohen, four message types are pertinent to this case, and
`
`they have between 13 and 26 data elements.
`
`Second, the message formats used by TID are not entirely original: they are derived
`
`from the industry standard for financial transactions, ISO 8583. Martinez admitted that she
`
`used the error codes and transaction codes of ISO 8583 when she developed the switch-to-host
`
`message format for Sharing, Dkt. 97, ¶ 19, which was then used by TID. Cohen acknowledges
`
`that the intra-switch message format is based on ISO 8583. For reasons given above, Cohen’s
`
`opinion that TID had significantly customized the ISO 8583 standard is inadmissible.
`
`Third, and most important, functional considerations are paramount in the message
`
`formats. ISO 8583 provides a library of more than 100 data fields, but the message formats
`
`used by TID and Entura include only the fields that are needed for the kind of transactions
`
`performed by the switch software. Martinez says in her declaration that her choices were not
`
`dictated by external factors, but this testimony is merely conclusory and manifestly incorrect.
`
`Dkt. 97, ¶¶ 23, 24, 33. In designing the switch-to-host format, for example, Martinez was not
`
`free to decide whether to include a data field for the card-holder’s account number; that field
`
`would be required so the financial institution could process the request. Similarly, the length
`
`of that field was determined by the need for efficiency: the field had to be long enough to
`
`accommodate the account number, but it would be wasteful to make the field longer than
`
`required. Martinez’s main explanation is that she selected the order of the fields, and she could
`
`have made a trillion other choices. Dkt. 97, ¶¶ 22-23. But making an arbitrary selection of the
`
`order of the 24 fields demonstrates only trivial creativity, scarcely more than it takes to put the
`
`phone book in alphabetical order. Feist, 499 U.S. at (1991) (“There remains a narrow category
`
`of works in which the creative spark is utterly lacking or so trivial as to be virtually
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case: 3:16-cv-00122-jdp Document #: 134 Filed: 03/27/18 Page 17 of 19
`
`nonexistent.”). The mere selection from available alternatives does not, by itself, demonstrate
`
`the requisite creativity. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 818 (1st Cir. 1995),
`
`aff'd, 516 U.S. 233 (1996). Ultimately, transactional switch software must use a data format
`
`that provides the information demanded by the other parts of the network with which the
`
`switch must interact. As Cohen acknowledged in his deposition, the financial institution
`
`dictates the protocol that the switch software must use to communicate with it. Dkt. 61, at 99:
`
`16-24. The design of these simple message formats was shot through with functional and
`
`efficiency concerns.
`
`The message formats used by TID are the digital equivalent of blank fill-in forms, which
`
`have long been regarded as not copyrightable. The seminal case is Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99
`
`(1879), which held that blank account books were not copyrightable, because granting such a
`
`copyright would be tantamount to granting a monopoly on using the underlying bookkeeping
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket