picture, a play, or a book, and the owner of the idea has no rights in that product.” Similarly in Hollinrake v Truswell [1894] 3 Ch 420 at p. 424, Lord Justice Lindley said: “Copyright does not extend to ideas, or schemes, or systems or methods; it is confined to their expression; and if their expression is not copied the copyright is not infringed.” Ghanaian law, as usual, has been influenced by this English law. Accordingly, the appellant has endeavoured to construct a case based on this axiom of English and Ghanaian law. That case is founded on Additional Ground B. In my view, this ground needs to be considered first. This is because, if it is successfully established, there will be no need to consider the other grounds. In the appellant’s Statement of Case, it presents the pith of its argument on this issue as follows: “57. Under these Grounds, the appellant submits that the judgment of the trial court failed to address the import of the provision in section 2 of Act 690 that copyright does not extend to ideas, and that the Court of Appeal erred in not setting aside the judgment on that ground. The plot of a novel, such as Woes, was an idea that had no copyright protection under Act 690. Therefore the Summary could not constitute copyright infringement especially when it was neither alleged nor established that the Summary had plagiarized the plaintiff’s linguistic style or presentation. The appellant argues that the Summary, 12