Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Medical and Scientific Communications, Inc. 118 F.3d 955 (2d Cir. 1997) Softel owned a copyright on some video imaging software. They provided the software to Dragon, but eventually the deal ended. Dragon retrieved deleted files Softel had left on their Dragon's computers and used them to make their own version of Softel's software. Softel sued for copyright infringement. Basically, the software was made up of a bunch of different software 'modules' or 'design elements' that each performed a function (kinda like subroutines). Dragon used four of Softel's modules. Dragon argued that each of the modules performed a pretty basic function, and since Softel couldn't claim a copyright on any individual basic function, they couldn't claim that Dragon was infringing. The Trial Court found for Dragon. Softel appealed. The Trial Court found that while Softel had a copyright on the overall program, each module, taken individually, was not copyrightable. The Appellate Court reversed. The Appellate Court looked to Computer Associates Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. (982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992)) and noted that non-literal similarity of computer programs can constitute copyright infringement. The Court found that individual elements of a computer program that are filtered out at one level might be copyrightable when viewed as part of an aggregate of elements at another level of abstraction. The Court compared this to a play by the Greek poet Homer. Each individual word in the play wasn't independently copyrightable, but put together they created a copyrightable work. So basically, even if all the various features of a computer program are not individually protectable elements, it could be that the choice of arrangement and selection could create some level of copyright protection, similar to how a compilation can have copyright protection. See Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. (499 U.S. 340 (1991)).