published purposely for education, did not infringe the plaintiff’s copyright in Woes. No copyright in the plot of Woes 58. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of his amended statement of claim (p 19) the respondent pleaded that the Summary was a substantial reproduction of Woes, particularized as “general similarity of the plot characterization and incidents in the two works and upon the similarity or identity of the words and phrases” (page 20). The main issue that fell for decision was whether Gateway merely summarized the plot of Woes or, whether in doing so, it plagiarized the literary presentation in Woes. Obviously the plaintiff did not establish the alleged “similarity or identity of the words and phrases” because there was none. The grievance of “general similarity of the plot characterization and incidents in the two works” also overlooked the position that there is no copyright in ideas.” In its Statement of Case, the appellant cites in support of its argument, Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, Vol. 1, 15th Edition, p. 26, para 2-06 as follows: “No copyright in ideas. Copyright is a property right. But copyright is concerned, in essence, with the negative right of preventing the copying of material. It is not concerned with the reproduction of ideas but with the reproduction of the form in which ideas are expressed. “Ideas, it has always been admitted…are free as air. Copyright is not a monopoly, unlike patents and registered designs, which are…The 13