yet, since the form of expression is necessarily different – indeed, if it is turned into a language such as Chinese the translation will consist of ideograms – the only connecting factor must be the detailed ideas and information. 2.76 Further, on consideration it will be perceived that any literary or dramatic work contains a combination of detailed ideas, thoughts or information expressed in a particular language or notation; and once it is conceded that the protection is not confined to the actual language or notation used, it must follow that what remains, and is protected, consists of the collection of ideas, thoughts or information.” If the argument presented in this passage is accepted, it would follow that the ideas which are excluded by section 2 of the Copyright Act 2005 from being copyrighted must be those of a general character, as distinct from the detailed pattern of ideas and thoughts embodied, for instance, in a novel. Thus, if a novel were couched in different vocabulary, reproducing all its ideas, thoughts, plots and action, but without replicating any of its original language or style, I do not consider that this would come within the ambit of the exclusion in section 2, although there would have been a copying of only its ideas and not its expression. In other words, the copying of the detailed substance of a literary work, without its particular linguistic or other form of expression, can constitute an infringement of copyright. In my view, what is intended to be included in section 2 are general ideas, concepts, procedures, and methods only, and not a detailed pattern of ideas. This is because of the reason earlier stated, namely that that detailed pattern can be regarded as constituting expression. The distinction between a general idea and a detailed sequence of ideas is therefore highly significant in this context. 16