|
参见郭禾主编：《知识产权法案例分析》，中国人民大学出版社2000年版，第58页。
Brad Sherman and Lionel Bently, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760-1911, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, at p11.这场争论被称为“出版商的战争”（“battle of the booksellers”）。
Katle Sykes, Towards a Public Justification of Copyright, 61 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. at p10.
98 Eng. Rep. 201, 229 (K.B. 1769) (Yates法官的不同意见).
1 Eng. Rep. 837 (H.L. 1774).
Brad Sherman and Lionel Bently, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760-1911, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, at p11-12.
Brad Sherman and Lionel Bently, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760-1911, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, at p13.
W. Kenrick, An Address to the Artists and Manufacturers of Great Britain: Respecting an Application to Parliament for the Further Encouragement of New Discoveries and Inventions in the Useful Arts（London: Domville, 1774）, 45-6, citing Brad Sherman and Lionel Bently, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760-1911, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, at p19.
Brad Sherman and Lionel Bently, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760-1911, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, at p15.
Brad Sherman and Lionel Bently, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760-1911, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, at p20.
这也是Brad Sherman和Lionel Bently写作The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760-1911一书的目的，参见该书导论部分。
Brad Sherman and Lionel Bently, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760-1911, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, at p13-14.
Brad Sherman and Lionel Bently, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760-1911, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, at p11-12.
Katle Sykes, Towards a Public Justification of Copyright, 61 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. at p9. from LexisNexis.com.
Brad Sherman and Lionel Bently, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760-1911, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, at p14-15.
Brad Sherman and Lionel Bently, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760-1911, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, at p20-24.
F. Hargrave, An Argument in Defence of Literary Property（1774）, 15 and 18. citing Brad Sherman and Lionel Bently, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760-1911, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, at p27.
Millar v. Taylor（1769） 98 ER 234, citing Brad Sherman and Lionel Bently, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760-1911, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, at p28.
Brad Sherman and Lionel Bently, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760-1911, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, at p28-33.
Brad Sherman and Lionel Bently, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760-1911, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, at p34-35.
Dale P. Olson, The Uneasy Legacy of Baker v. Selden, 43 S.D. L. REV. at p604.
Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1880).这里的案情总结及翻译参照了郭禾主编的《知识产权法案例分析》一书对该案的案情的总结及翻译（中国人民大学出版社2000年版，第57-58页）。
Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1880).
Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1880).
Edward Samuels, The Idea-expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law, 56 Tenn. L. Rev. at p326.
Edward Samuels, The Idea-expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law, 56 Tenn. L. Rev. at p326.
Edward Samuels, The Idea-expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law, 56 Tenn. L. Rev. at p327.
Dale P. Olson , The Uneasy Legacy of Baker v. Selden, 43 S.D. L. REV. at p615.
98 Eng. Rep. 201, 229 (K.B. 1769), citing from Katle Sykes, Towards a Public Justification of Copyright, 61 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. at p9.
98 Eng. Rep. 201, 229 (K.B. 1769), citing from Katle Sykes, Towards a Public Justification of Copyright, 61 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. at p9.
1 Eng. Rep. 837 (H.L. 1774), citing from Edward Samuels, The Idea-expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law, 56 Tenn. L. Rev. at p336.
23 F. Cas. 201 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1853) (No. 13,514).
Edward Samuels, The Idea-expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law, 56 Tenn. L. Rev. at p337.
Leslie A. Kurtz, Speaking to the Ghost: Idea and Expression in Copyright, 47 U. Miami L. Rev. at p1226.
Edward Samuels, The Idea-expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law, 56 Tenn. L. Rev. at p338.
Edward Samuels, The Idea-expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law, 56 Tenn. L. Rev. at p339.
Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1880).
Edward Samuels, The Idea-expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law, 56 Tenn. L. Rev. at p369.
王春燕：《作品中的表达与作品之间的实质相似————以两组美国著作权判例为线索》，《中外法学》2000年第5期。
Edward Samuels, The Idea-expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law, 56 Tenn. L. Rev., at p368。
仅仅将权利限制在字面复制上的缺陷实际上在思想表现两分理论的英国起源中已经为人们所注意到，只不过在实际保护上采用的主要还是字面复制。
NICHOLS v. UNIVERSAL PICTURES CORPORATION, 45 F.2d 119.
Leslie A. Kurtz, Speaking to the Ghost: Idea and Expression in Copyright, 47 U. Miami L. Rev. at p1227.
299 F. 533。
Edward Samuels, The Idea-expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law, 56 Tenn. L. Rev. at p334.
209 U.S. 17.
Fed. Cas. No. 8, 136. Citing King Features Syndicate v. Fleischer, 299 F. 533.
37 Fed. 202. Citing King Features Syndicate v. Fleischer, 299 F. 533.
Edward Samuels, The Idea-expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law, 56 Tenn. L. Rev. at p339.
45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930).
Jonathan S. Katz, Expanded Notions of Copyright Protection: Idea Protection within the Copyright Act, 77 B.U.L. Rev. at 880.
Janice E. Oakes, Copyright and the First Amendment: Where Lies the Public Interest? 59 Tul. L. Rev. at 137.
Edward Samuels, The Idea-expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law, 56 Tenn. L. Rev. at 344.
Edward Samuels, The Idea-expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law, 56 Tenn. L. Rev. at 346.
NICHOLS v. UNIVERSAL PICTURES CORPORATION et al，45 F.2d 119.
John Cady, Copyrighting Computer Programs: Distinguishing Expression From Ideas, 22 Temp. Envtl. L. & Tech. J. at p18.
Amy B. Cohen, Copyright Law and the Myth of Objectivity: The Idea-Expression Dichotomy and the Inevitability of Artistic Value Judgments, 66 Ind. L.J. at p221.
Alfred C. Yen, A First Amendment Perspective on the Idea/expression Dichotomy and Copyright in a Work’s “Total Concept and feel”, 38 Emory L.J. at p405.
81 F.2d 49 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 298 U.S. 669 (1936) .
Edward Samuels, The Idea-expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law, 56 Tenn. L. Rev. at 346.
216 F.2d 945 (9th Cir. 1954)
Jonathan S. Katz, Expanded Notions of Copyright Protection: Idea Protection within the Copyright Act, 77 B.U.L. Rev. at p882.
Jonathan S. Katz, Expanded Notions of Copyright Protection: Idea Protection within the Copyright Act, 77 B.U.L. Rev. at p882-883.
581 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1978).
Jonathan S. Katz, Expanded Notions of Copyright Protection: Idea Protection within the Copyright Act, 77 B.U.L. Rev. at p885.
429 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1970).
Jonathan S. Katz, Expanded Notions of Copyright Protection: Idea Protection within the Copyright Act, 77 B.U.L. Rev. at p884.
663 F. Supp. 706 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).
Jonathan S. Katz, Expanded Notions of Copyright Protection: Idea Protection within the Copyright Act, 77 B.U.L. Rev. 873, pp881.
714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983).
Edward Samuels, The Idea-expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law, 56 Tenn. L. Rev. at p358.
797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986).
Steven R. Englund, Idea, Process, or Protected Expression?: Determining the Scope of Copyright Protection of the Structure of Computer Programs, 88 Mich. L. Rev. 866.
Forum: Whelan V. Jaslow: an Appraisal: Forum Introduction, 2 J.L. & TECH. At p3.
Leslie A. Kurtz, Speaking to the Ghost: Idea and Expression in Copyright, 47 U. Miami L. Rev. at p1228.
154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946).
Leslie A. Kurtz, Speaking to the Ghost: Idea and Expression in Copyright, 47 U. Miami L. Rev. at p1239.
216 F.2d 945 (9th Cir. 1954).
429 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1970).
982 F.2d 693(2d Cir.1992).
王春燕：《作品中的表达与作品之间的实质相似————以两组美国著作权判例为线索》，《中外法学》2000年第5期。
克洛德·科隆贝：《世界各国著作权和邻接权的基本原则——比较法研究》，高凌瀚译，上海外语教育出版社1995年版，第3页。
克洛德·科隆贝：《世界各国著作权和邻接权的基本原则——比较法研究》，高凌瀚译，上海外语教育出版社1995年版，第3-4页。
克洛德·科隆贝：《世界各国著作权和邻接权的基本原则——比较法研究》，高凌瀚译，上海外语教育出版社1995年版，第4页。
|
