Amendment. See Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology, Int'l, Inc. v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306, 1309-10 (9th Cir. 1989).
- F. Merger
Defendants maintain that the "merger doctrine" applies here. "When an idea is so restrictive that it necessarily requires a particular form of expression, that is, when the idea and its expression are functionally inseparable, to permit the copyrighting of the expression would be to grant the copyright owner a monopoly of the idea." Freedman v. Grolier Enters., Inc., 179 U.S.P.Q. 476, 478 (S.D.N.Y. 1973); CCC Information Servs., Inc. v. Maclean Hunter Mkt. Repts., 44 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1994).
Defendants maintain that the ideas in the Course could only have been stated in the form in which they are stated in the Course. To conclude thus requires adhering to the belief that because the words of the Course are allegedly the words of Jesus, they could not have been phrased in any other way. In fact, a brief glance through the Course reveals that the same or remarkably similar ideas are restated continually in a myriad of ways. Doubtless these ideas could be further restated in an endless variety of forms.
52
