position is that, if the idea embodied in the plaintiff’s work is sufficiently general, the mere taking of that idea will not infringe. If, however, the idea is worked out in some detail in the plaintiff’s work and the defendant reproduces the expression of that idea, then there may be an infringement”. (Emphasis supplied.) 61. At page 371-372, paragraph 7-13ff the learned authors discussed the distinction between the reproduction of an idea and the reproduction of the expression of an idea: “Ideas versus expression. In dealing with the question of copying, there should be borne in mind the well established principle that there is no copyright in mere ideas, concepts, schemes, systems or methods. Rather, the object of copyright is to prevent the copying of the particular form of expression in which these things are conveyed. If the expression is not copied, copyright is not infringed. Thus to be liable, the defendant must have made a substantial use of the form of expression; he is not liable if he has taken from the work the essential idea, for his own purposes. Protection of this kind can only be obtained, if at all, under patent law or the law relating to confidential information. This principle finds expression in many of the cases, to the effect, for example, that it is no infringement of the copyright on a literary or dramatic work to take its basic idea or plot…” (Italics supplied).” Thus this court needs to examine this issue of whether there can be copyright in a plot and whether the Summary was of only the plot of Woes or of more than that. It is, however, for the purpose of determining this case, 14