context: An-tonick's claims rest on the contention that the source code of the Sega Madden games infringed on the source code for Apple II Madden. But, none of the source code was in evidence. The jury therefore could not compare the works to determine substantial similarity. And, absent evidence of the copyrighted work and the allegedly infringing works, the record is insufficient to allow appellate review of the jury's verdict.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 919 F.2d 1353, 1355
citation_a.parenthetical: "We have frequently affirmed summary judgment in favor of copyright defendants on the issue of substantial similarity."
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Olson v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 855 F.2d 1446, 1448, 1451 (9th Cir. 1988) (granting JMOL to copyright defendant because no reasonable jury could have found substantial,similarity); cf. Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F.2d 1353, 1355 (9th Cir. 1990) (“We have frequently affirmed summary judgment in favor of copyright defendants on the issue of substantial similarity.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 855 F.2d 1446, 1448, 1451
citation_b.parenthetical: granting JMOL to copyright defendant because no reasonable jury could have found substantial,similarity
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Olson v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 855 F.2d 1446, 1448, 1451 (9th Cir. 1988) (granting JMOL to copyright defendant because no reasonable jury could have found substantial,similarity); cf. Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F.2d 1353, 1355 (9th Cir. 1990) (“We have frequently affirmed summary judgment in favor of copyright defendants on the issue of substantial similarity.”).