ÿWPCž Œ¾‰ê8 à$ j!/! W£C’ïR¦È# ½ £Sl5g\àñX„•.¸Æü>Ö9$GpIo[c.ð¼'‹“pØkö)‰©%ÊÉϸ0oyTìŸf8y;DHT·tõ_#4›â÷p²Ñ8âWZ† ú†.’{dÄŸ.&Râk׫Ó9ßYb!HlNA ¥`ÕÕ$“¹wTTƒÁÌÂ)xã0Ïx4냽ەˆ¤É LíI×£¡ù²ñ9†rèÚ9¨Ö¼-NÑÃj¡‚~m'’ÊJ/ÍUÏQ°¶¨£d—àùÜúbaš–^»Ø·T5aØx$.à!|X¯>E=~á¯]ÀÄÓ .À¤ LÍEXw=¨Uõyf@=WÒ‹0͆¼4Á¹ª$Èj}aºŒO7²B´Ÿ¤}‰¦ñ#´ 8Ô¥—žòI.'º¥äÔKgM½YÎ'OQ¾ÇŸù¤Òݽ¥3èzؤÑXŸ½ä휽ðë"“í{-û—³rÝždÌ“‰$4úH±| ë·î8o Ài+RŠr($øVgÙód”Cüa~W¯`ëi—1ÁÔ½{dÒ«4™4»€“ÉzÔÿx9\©x ¸Aà‚x†õ–˦F|îöüd•(#Á0 %ñ 0D÷ 0G;U:‚ 0¨¼U8dnTœNðUNòUF@ ^ † w’ 4– ª ¹ E» f½ a¿ mÓ ê Nò ^ô UBR b” tœ pÌ€mL>¹Š÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷ B˜HP LaserJet 5Ü,,,,Ü0X(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(þ$¡¡Ô€XŒ—XXXÔ<þ6X9`("Courier NewTT(F:2E#$¤¤Ý ƒþ!ÝÔ€XâˆXXXÔÝ  ÝÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó<4šÛ 9Z+‹ Courier New «<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`(CourierTTXXwþ6X@ÉüQX@vÖr Z‹6Times New Roman Regular<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular ’µ0s B„l0Öry File3|xøÀTABLE AÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ  L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- ù- jÝ ƒE#$ÝÔ€XâˆXXXÔÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBoth€MaPS€and€AIM€were€performance„measurement€tools,€butÐ ° Ðthey€performed€different€functions€and€used€different€information.€Ð †Ö ÐMaPS€was€a€management€and€accounting€system€that€was€designedÐ \¬ Ðprimarily€to€allow€users€to€keep€track€of€a€portfolio€of€fixedÐ 2‚ Ðincome€investments€through€the€periodic€entry€of€data,€such€as€theÐ X Ðprice€at€which€a€particular€security€was€acquired.€€By€contrast,Ð Þ. ÐAIM€allowed€users€to€analyze€and€compare€data€(separately€suppliedÐ ´  Ðby€S&P)€relating€to€some€60,000€mutual€funds€worldwide.€€The€twoÐ Š Ú Ðprograms€were€marketed€and€supported€separately.€€€€€€€ fÝ ƒE#$ÝÔ€XâˆXXXÔÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòWalthalóó€v.€òòRuskóó,€172€F.3d€481,€485€(7th€Cir.Ð ° Ð1999);€1€òòNimmer€on€Copyrightóó€ðð€101(B)(3)(a)€(2003)€("[I]t€remainsÐ †Ö Ðtrue€that€the€vast€bulk€of€copyright€contractual€issues€must€beÐ \¬ Ðresolved€under€state€law,€given€the€silence€of€the€Copyright€Act€inÐ 2‚ Ðaddressing€such€issues€as€.€.€.€how€to€construe€ambiguousÐ X Ðcontractual€language€.€.€.€."). ÂÝ ƒE#$ÝÔ€XâˆXXXÔÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòCompare,€e.g.óó,€òòUniroyal€Goodrich€Tire€Co.óó€v.€òòMutual€TradingÐ ° ÐCorp.óó,€63€F.3d€516,€526€(7th€Cir.€1995),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€516€U.S.Ð †Ö Ð1115€(1996)€(holding€that€expenses€paid€for€computer„assistedÐ \¬ Ðresearch€were€recoverable),€òòandóó€òòUnited€Nuclear€Corp.óó€v.€òòCannonóó,€564Ð 2‚ ÐF.€Supp.€2d€581,€591„92€(D.R.I.€1983)€(Selya,€J.)€(same),€òòwith,Ð X Ðe.g.óó,€òòStandleyóó€v.€òòChilhowee€R„IV€Sch.€Dist.óó,€5€F.3d€319,€325€&€n.7Ð Þ. Ð(8th€Cir.€1993)€(holding€that€the€cost€of€computerized€researchÐ ´  Ðmust€be€factored€into€attorneys'€hourly€rates€and€is€not€separatelyÐ Š Ú Ðcompensable),€òòBDóó€v.€òòDebuonoóó,€177€F.€Supp.€201,€209€(S.D.N.Y.€2001)Ð ` ° Ð(holding€that€computerized€research€expenses€are€properlyÐ 6 †  Ðconsidered€overhead),€òòandóó€òòYankee€Candle€Co.óó€v.€òòBridgewater€CandleÐ  \  ÐCo.óó,€140€F.€Supp.€2d€111,€126€(D.€Mass.€2001)€(same).€€€ cÝ ƒE#$ÝÔ€XâˆXXXÔÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ XâˆXXXâˆÔIn€economics,€there€are€efficiency€arguments€for€collectingÐ ° Ðvariable€costs€from€the€cost€causerð!ðð ðefficiencyðð€meaning€thatÐ †Ö Ðresources€will€be€used€more€productively.€€òòCf.óó€1€Kahn,€òòTheÐ \¬ ÐEconomics€of€Regulation:€Principles€and€Institutionsóó€71„72€(1970).€Ð 2‚ ÐBut€it€is€impractical€to€track€and€collect€all€variable€costsÐ X Ð(òòe.g.óó,€yellow€pads€used€by€each€lawyer),€and€anyway€the€hourly€feeÐ Þ. Ðis€a€crude€proxy€for€many€variable€costs€(the€more€hours€spent,€theÐ ´  Ðmore€yellow€pads€usedð!ð„roughly€speaking).Ô#†XâˆXX Xâˆ#Ô 4Ý ƒE#$ÝÔ€XâˆXXXÔÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ XâˆXXXâˆÔA€different€problem€would€be€presented€if€the€firm€paid€aÐ ° Ðflat€monthly€fee€to€Westlaw€or€Lexis€and€then€allocated€amountsÐ †Ö Ðamong€clients;€similarly,€any€markup€by€the€firm€would€raiseÐ \¬ Ðquestions.€€However,€the€plaintiffs€in€this€case€did€not€make€anyÐ 2‚ Ðsuch€claim€in€the€district€court,€and€we€take€the€defendants'€briefÐ X Ðto€assert€that€the€costs€in€question€were€simply€a€straight€pass„Ð Þ. Ðthrough€of€time„based€charges€paid€to€the€service€providers€forÐ ´  Ðwork€done€in€this€case.Ô#†XâˆXX Xâˆ#Ô Ô  ' Moisakis0Moisakis .    dÝ ƒþ!ÝÔ€XâˆXXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRY,3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !ÙÔ€ X(®XXXâˆÔÔ€ °áf°X X(®Ôò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÔ€ „_ׄ° °áfÔÐ ° ÐFor€the€First€Circuitó óÔ€ „W~„„ „_×ÔÔ€ XâˆX„ „W~ÔÐ „Ô ÐÓÓÌßA€') °°` dE<¹` AßÐ º  ÐÌNo.€03„1954Ð Ÿ ï ÐÌà@l l ìàÔ_ÔINVESSYSÔ_Ô,€INC.€and€PETER€HODGES,ˆÐ K › ÐÌà@ˆˆìàPlaintiffs,€Appellants,ˆÐ ÷ G  ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ £ó  ÐÌà@¸ ¸ ìàTHE€Ô_ÔMcGRAWÔ_Ô„HILL€COMPANIES,€LTD.€andˆÐ OŸ  Ðà@l l ìàTHE€Ô_ÔMcGRAWÔ_Ô„HILL€COMPANIES,€INC.,ˆÐ %u  ÐÌà@ÄÄìàDefendants,€Appellees.ˆÐ Ñ! ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ b² ÐÌà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÐ ^ ÐÌà@44ìà[Hon.€George€A.€Ô_ÔO'TooleÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ º  ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<e` AßÐ f¶ ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ K› ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Ô_ÔBoudinÔ_Ô,€òòChief€Judgeóó,Ð ÷G ÐÌÔ_ÔCyrÔ_Ô,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeóó,Ð £ó  ÐÌand€Howard,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.€Ð O Ÿ" ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<ú!` AßÐ û!K$ ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòDouglas€H.€Wilkinsóó€with€whom€òòAnderson€&€Ô_ÔKreigerÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔLLPÔ_Ôóó€was€onÐ à"0& Ðbrief€for€appellants.Ð ¶#' Ðà  àòòJohn€D.€Donovan,€Jr.óó€with€whom€òòCrystal€D.€Ô_ÔTalleyÔ_Ôóó,€òòÔ_ÔLevinaÔ_Ô€WongóóÐ Œ$Ü( Ðand€òòRopes€&€Gray€Ô_ÔLLPÔ_Ôóó€were€on€brief€for€appellees.Ð b%² ) ÐÌÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ ä'4#,ä'4# ‹‹ÐÓ«ÓÐ SIH(˜#- àâ@38127„„‰àâ@‰‹‹SÐÌMay€21,€2004Ð )n$/ ÐÐ RHCô)D%0" àâ@38127 àâ@ ‹‹RÐÐ(H(˜#1  (ÐÓ  ÓÙ* !ÙÌÌÓ  ÓÌÐ  |-Ì(4? ÐÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€2XXdÈdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àòòóóò òBOUDIN,€òòChief€Judgeóó.ó ó€€Defendants„„The€McGraw„HillÐ ° ÐCompanies,€Ltd.,€and€The€McGraw„Hill€Companies,€Inc.€(togetherÐ xÈ Ð"McGraw„Hill")„„successfully€defended€themselves€against€a€lawsuitÐ $t Ðbrought€by€plaintiffs€InvesSys,€Inc.€("InvesSys"),€and€PeterÐ Ð  ÐHodges.€€One€of€the€claims€in€the€complaint€was€for€copyrightÐ | Ì Ðinfringement€and,€at€the€end€of€the€case,€the€district€courtÐ ( x  Ðawarded€attorney's€fees€and€costs€to€McGraw„Hill€under€theÐ Ô$  ÐCopyright€Act.€€17€U.S.C.€ðð€505€(2000).€€Plaintiffs€now€appeal,Ð €Ð  Ðcontesting€the€award.Ð ,|  Ðà ` àThe€background€facts€are€as€follows.€€During€the€springÐ Ø( Ðof€2000,€McGraw„Hill€became€interested€in€selling€a€subsidiaryÐ „Ô Ðcalled€Micropal€Accounting€Portfolio€Services,€Inc.€("MAPSI").€Ð 0€ ÐMAPSI's€primary€business€was€the€licensing€and€support€of€aÐ Ü, ÐWindows„based€software€program€called€"MaPS."€€Hodges,€who€was€anÐ ˆØ Ðemployee€of€the€McGraw„Hill€subsidiary€that€owned€MAPSIð!ðStandard€&Ð 4„ ÐPoor's€Fund€Services,€Inc.€("S&P")„„expressed€interest€inÐ à0 Ðpurchasing€MAPSI.€€Ð ŒÜ  Ðà ` àNegotiations€between€Hodges€and€McGraw„Hill€for€the€saleÐ 8!ˆ" Ðof€MAPSI€began€in€the€fall€of€2000.€€The€lead€negotiator€forÐ ä"4$ ÐMcGraw„Hill€was€Kevin€Thornton,€then€the€managing€director€of€S&P.€Ð $à& ÐAt€some€point€in€the€negotiations,€Hodges€requested€that€MaPS'sÐ <&Œ!( ÐDOS„based€predecessor€programs€be€included€in€the€deal.€€ThorntonÐ è'8#* Ðâ âagreed,€and,€because€the€additional€programs€Hodges€sought€wereÐ ”)ä$, Ðconsidered€obsolete,€directed€that€they€be€added€to€the€terms€of€aÐ ° Ðdraft€sales€agreement€for€no€additional€consideration.€€€Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àWhen€McGraw„Hill's€lawyer€(Susan€Winter)€added€theÐ X Ðpredecessor€programs€to€the€draft€agreement,€she€also€included€aÐ ´  Ðprogram€called€"AIM,"€which€was€not€obsolete,€was€not€a€part€of€theÐ ` ° ÐMaPS€line€of€programs,€and€in€fact€generated€millions€of€dollars€inÐ  \  Ðrevenue€for€McGraw„Hill.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Hodges€had€expressed€interest€in€the€AIMÐ ¸  Ðprogram€to€McGraw„Hill€manager€Adrian€Manning,€who€had€referredÐ d´  ÐHodges€to€Thornton.€€Hodges€would€later€claim€that€he€spoke€withÐ `  ÐThornton€about€AIM€and€obtained€his€agreement€to€include€theÐ ¼  Ðprogram€in€the€deal;€Thornton€would€deny€that€Hodges€everÐ h¸ Ðapproached€him€about€AIM.€€Ð d Ðà ` àThe€draft€agreement„„including€its€reference€to€the€AIMÐ À Ðprogram„„was€reviewed€several€times€by€Thornton€and€other€McGraw„Ð l¼ ÐHill€officials€before€it€was€executed€by€the€parties€on€May€29,Ð h Ð2001.€€The€final€purchase€price€was€$19,600,€and€no€McGraw„HillÐ Ä Ðofficial€raised€any€objection€to€the€specification€of€the€AIMÐ pÀ  Ðprogram€as€among€those€being€transferred.€€After€the€sale€wasÐ !l" Ðcompleted,€Hodges€conveyed€his€rights€to€MAPSI€and€AIM€to€InvesSys.Ð È"$ ÐHodges€is€InvesSys's€sole€shareholder,€sole€officer,€sole€director,Ð ° Ðand€sole€employee.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àOn€August€2,€2002,€Hodges€called€Thornton€to€arrange€aÐ X Ðmeeting€for€the€following€day.€€At€the€meeting,€Hodges€askedÐ ´  ÐThornton€for€access€to€data€feeds€that€were€necessary€to€market€theÐ ` ° ÐAIM€software.€€Thornton€claimed€that€he€had€not€been€aware€that€AIMÐ  \  Ðhad€been€included€in€the€terms€of€the€sales€agreement.€€AfterÐ ¸  Ðexamination€of€the€document,€McGraw„Hill€took€the€position€that,Ð d´  Ðunder€New€York€law,€inclusion€of€AIM€was€a€scrivener's€error€andÐ `  Ðmaintained€that€it€still€owned€the€rights€to€AIM.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àOn€November€26,€2001,€Hodges€and€InvesSys€filed€suitÐ h¸ Ðagainst€McGraw„Hill€in€the€federal€district€court€for€the€districtÐ d Ðof€Massachusetts.€€The€suit€alleged€copyright€infringement„„aÐ À Ðfederal€claim€under€the€Copyright€Act„„as€well€as€breach€ofÐ l¼ Ðcontract€and€a€medley€of€other€state€law€claims€(fraud,€conversion,Ð h Ðand€claims€under€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.€93A).€€Because€the€partiesÐ Ä Ðagreed€that€the€scrivener's„error€issue€was€central,€the€districtÐ pÀ  Ðcourt€directed€that€only€the€state€law€claims€proceed€to€trial,€theÐ !l" Ðcopyright€claim€being€held€in€abeyance.€€€Ð È"$ Ðà ` àAt€trial,€the€principal€witnesses€were€Hodges,€Winter,Ð t$Ä& ÐManning,€and€Thornton.€€The€gist€of€plaintiffs'€case€was€that€thereÐ  &p!( Ðhad€been€a€knowing€sale€of€AIM€by€McGraw„Hill;€defendants'€positionÐ Ì'#* Ðwas€that€inclusion€of€AIM€was€patently€a€scrivener's€error€byÐ x)È$, ÐWinter€and€that€the€parties'€true€intentions€required€reform€of€theÐ $+t&. Ðcontract€to€exclude€AIM€under€well€established€legal€doctrine.€€òòSeeóóÐ ° ÐòòGeorge€Backer€Mgmt.€Corp.óó€v.€òòACME€Quilting€Co.óó,€385€N.E.2d€1062,Ð \¬ Ð1066€(N.Y.€1978);€7€òòCorbin€on€Contractsóó€ðð€2845€(rev.€ed.€2002).€€Ð X Ðà ` àAfter€the€close€of€evidence,€the€court€presented€the€juryÐ ´  Ðwith€a€single€initial€question:€Ð ` ° ÐÓÓà8 ` àHave€the€defendants€proven€by€clear€andÐ  \  Ðconvincing€evidence,€that€the€inclusion€ofÐ â 2  Ð'AIM'€in€.€.€.€the€Share€Purchase€AgreementÐ ¸  Ðwas€a€scrivener's€error€that€did€not€reflectÐ ŽÞ  Ðthe€actual€agreement€of€the€parties?€€€Ðd´ ` x` x ÐÌÓÀ$ÓThe€jury€answered€"yes,"€and€the€district€court€entered€judgmentÐ `  Ðfor€McGraw„Hill€on€all€claims,€including€the€claim€of€copyrightÐ ¼  Ðinfringement.€€Thereafter,€the€court€awarded€McGraw„Hill€$200,000Ð h¸ Ðin€attorney's€fees€and€$28,583.78€in€costs€under€section€505,Ð d Ðfinding€that€plaintiffs'€claim€of€copyright€infringement€wasÐ À Ðobjectively€unreasonable€and€improperly€motivated.€Ð l¼ Ðà ` àIn€its€award,€the€district€court€declined€to€make€anyÐ h Ðreduction€despite€plaintiffs'€claim€(and€defendants'€admission)Ð Ä Ðthat€much,€if€not€all,€of€the€legal€work€performed€in€the€case€hadÐ pÀ  Ðapplication€to€the€state€law€claims€as€well€as€the€copyright€claim.€Ð !l" ÐThe€district€court€included€in€its€award€payments€by€defenseÐ È"$ Ðcounsel€for€computer„assisted€legal€research.€€The€court€also€madeÐ t$Ä& Ðthe€award€run€against€Hodges€personally€as€well€as€InvesSys.€Ð  &p!( ÐPlaintiffs€now€appeal,€challenging€the€award€itself€and€each€of€theÐ Ì'#* Ðancillary€rulings.Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àÐ $+t&. Ðà ` àSection€505€provides:Ð ° ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓIn€any€civil€action€under€this€title,€theÐ \¬ Ðcourt€in€its€discretion€may€allow€the€recoveryÐ 2‚ Ðof€full€costs€by€or€against€any€party€otherÐ X Ðthan€the€United€States€or€an€officer€thereof.€Ð Þ. ÐExcept€as€otherwise€provided€by€this€title,Ð ´  Ðthe€court€may€also€award€a€reasonableÐ Š Ú Ðattorney's€fee€to€the€prevailing€party€as€partÐ ` ° Ðof€the€costs.Ð 6 †  ÐÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓà ` àUnlike€most€fee„shifting€statutes,€section€505€allowsÐ â 2  Ðattorney's€fees€to€be€awarded€to€defendants€on€an€"even„handed"Ð ŽÞ  Ðbasis€with€plaintiffs.€€òòFogertyóó€v.€òòFantasy,€Inc.óó,€510€U.S.€517,€534Ð :Š  Ð(1994);€òòLotus€Dev.€Corp.óó€v.€òòBorland€Int'l,€Inc.óó,€140€F.3d€70,€72„73Ð æ6 Ð(1st€Cir.€1998).€€òòFogertyóó€said€that€the€award€rested€in€"theÐ ’â Ð[trial]€court's€discretion"€and€that€there€was€no€formula,€but€thatÐ >Ž Ðfactors€that€could€be€taken€into€consideration€included€òòinter€aliaóóÐ ê: Ðthe€objective€unreasonableness€of€the€losing€side's€position.€€510Ð –æ ÐU.S.€at€534€&€n.19.Ð B’ Ðà ` àAlthough€fee€awards€are€nominally€reviewed€on€appeal€forÐ î> Ð"abuse€of€discretion,"òòóó€òòMatthewsóó€v.€òòFreedmanóó,€157€F.3d€25,€29€(1stÐ šê ÐCir.€1998),€an€award€can€also€depend€on€legal€issues€that€areÐ F –! Ðreviewed€òòde€novoóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòPadilla„Galarzaóó,€351€F.3dÐ ò!B# Ð594,€597€&€n.3€(1st€Cir.€2003).€€Plaintiffs'€broadest€position,Ð ž#î% Ðwhich€falls€in€the€latter€category,€is€that€no€award€was€permittedÐ J%š ' Ðbecause€the€trial€was€directed€only€to€state€law€claims€and€turnedÐ ö&F") Ðon€a€state€law€issue;€at€the€very€least,€say€plaintiffs,€the€costsÐ ¢(ò#+ Ðhad€to€be€allocated€and€that€most€concerned€the€ownership€issueÐ N*ž%- Ðrather€than€anything€peculiar€to€copyright.Ð ú+J'/ Ðà ` àThe€statute,€drafted€with€claims€under€the€Copyright€ActÐ ° Ðin€mind,€does€not€expressly€address€the€problem€of€a€case€with€aÐ \¬ Ðmix€of€claims.€€However,€here€a€federal€copyright€claim€wasÐ X Ðasserted€in€the€complaint,€so€this€is€literally€a€"civil€actionÐ ´  Ðunder€this€title€[the€Copyright€Act],"€17€U.S.C.€ðð€505;€and€theÐ ` ° Ðcase€law€has€used€common€sense€to€carry€out€Congress'€underlyingÐ  \  Ðintent€to€provide€for€attorney's€fees€in€copyright€enforcement€orÐ ¸  Ðlike€matters€but€not€for€other€civil€claims€that€do€not€involveÐ d´  Ðcopyright.€€òòSeeóó€òòEntm't€Research€Group,€Inc.óó€v.€òòGenesis€CreativeÐ `  ÐGroup,€Inc.óó,€122€F.3d€1211,€1230„31€(9th€Cir.€1997),€òòcert.€deniedóó,Ð ¼  Ð523€U.S.€1021€(1998).€€Ð h¸ Ðà ` àImplementing€that€intent€presents€the€recurring€problemÐ d Ðof€form€versus€substance.€€The€only€claims€posed€for€trial€wereÐ À Ðstate€law€claims€(most€importantly,€a€contract€claim)€and€the€onlyÐ l¼ Ðissue€decided€was€ownership€of€AIM,€turning€on€state€law€rules€asÐ h Ðto€contract€and€reformation.€€Ownership€of€a€copyright€is€aÐ Ä Ðòòpredicateóó€to€a€federal€copyright€claim,€òòseeóó€17€U.S.C.€ðð€501(b);Ð pÀ  ÐòòFeist€Publ'ns,€Inc.óó€v.€òòRural€Tel.€Serv.€Co.óó,€499€U.S.€340,€361Ð !l" Ð(1991),€but€the€rules€governing€contractual€transfer€of€ownershipÐ È"$ Ðhave€been€left€(for€the€most€part)€to€state€law.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð t$Ä& Ðà ` àYet€the€question€of€ownership€of€AIM€was€òòcommonóó€to€bothÐ ° Ðthe€plaintiffs'€claim€under€the€Copyright€Act€and€their€claimsÐ \¬ Ðunder€state€law.€€If€plaintiffs€lost€as€to€ownership,€all€claimsÐ X Ðfailed.€€The€fact€that€the€district€court€chose€to€extract€thisÐ ´  Ðcommon€issue€and€try€it€first,€nominally€deferring€the€copyrightÐ ` ° Ðclaim,€does€not€alter€the€fact€that€the€copyright€claim€was€in€theÐ  \  Ðcase€and€depended€on€the€ownership€issue€being€tried.€€HadÐ ¸  Ðplaintiffs'€complaint€set€forth€only€the€copyright€claim,€exactlyÐ d´  Ðthe€same€contractual€issue€would€have€had€to€be€tried.Ð `  Ðà ` àHad€plaintiffs€never€asserted€a€copyright€claim€but€onlyÐ ¼  Ðclaims€under€state€law,€it€would€be€hard€to€describe€this€as€aÐ h¸ Ð"civil€action€under"€that€statute.€€But€here€a€copyright€claim€wasÐ d Ðmade,€thereby€permitting€Copyright€Act€remedies,€and€the€issueÐ À Ðactually€litigated€was€necessary€to€the€assertion€of€that€claim.€Ð l¼ ÐSo€it€serves€Congress'€purpose€to€compensate€the€winning€side€forÐ h Ðattorney's€fees€and€costs.€€òòC.f.óó€òòMaljack€Prods.,€Inc.óó€v.€òòGoodtimesÐ Ä ÐHome€Video€Corp.óó,€81€F.3d€881,€884„86,€889€(9th€Cir.€1996).Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àPlaintiffs€argue€that€because€the€ownership€issue€isÐ !l" Ðgoverned€by€state€law,€it€cannot€carry€out€"the€purposes"€of€theÐ È"$ ÐCopyright€Act€to€award€attorney's€fees€and€costs.€€We€think€this€isÐ t$Ä& Ðtoo€cramped€a€reading€of€the€statute.€€On€the€contrary,€in€sectionÐ  &p!( Ð505€Congress€aimed€to€provide€a€potential€incentive€to€the€winnerÐ Ì'#* Ðwho€asserts€a€successful€copyright€claim€or€defends€against€anÐ x)È$, Ðunworthy€one.€€This€practical€concern€is€present€whether€the€caseÐ $+t&. Ðhappens€to€decide€a€landmark€issue€of€copyright€law€or,€in€the€end,Ð ° Ðturns€on€matters€that€have€nothing€to€do€with€the€statute.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àConsider€that€a€copyright€case€may€turn€solely€on€aÐ X Ðquestion€of€fact€such€as€whether€the€defendant€copied€a€protectedÐ ´  Ðwork€or€stumbled€on€the€same€jingle€by€chance.€€Or€a€copyright€caseÐ ` ° Ðmight€be€won€because€the€defendant€failed€to€answer€the€complaintÐ  \  Ðor€be€lost€because€of€a€discovery€violation€by€the€plaintiff„„civilÐ ¸  Ðprocedure€questions€in€which€copyright€law€plays€no€part.€€Yet€inÐ d´  Ðboth€sets€of€cases,€surely€the€winner€could€claim€attorney's€feesÐ `  Ðand€costs€(subject€as€always€to€the€trial€court's€discretionaryÐ ¼  Ðjudgment).€€òòSeeóó€òòMcGaugheyóó€v.€òòTwentieth€Century€Fox€Film€Corp.óó,€12Ð h¸ ÐF.3d€62,€64„65€(5th€Cir.€1994).Ð d Ðà ` àPlaintiffs€also€argue€that,€at€a€minimum,€there€shouldÐ À Ðhave€been€an€allocation€of€fees€and€costs€between€the€copyright€andÐ l¼ Ðstate€law€claims.€€If€there€were€any€indication€that€significantÐ h Ðòòextraóó€moneys€were€expended€by€the€defense€because€of€the€presenceÐ Ä Ðof€state€law€claims,€we€would€agree€that€allocation€was€required.€Ð pÀ  ÐòòSeeóó€òòEntm't€Research€Groupóó,€122€F.3d€at€1230.€€That€could€easily€beÐ !l" Ðso€if,€for€example,€independent€issues€were€raised€and€litigated€asÐ È"$ Ðto€fraud€that€were€unnecessary€to€resolving€the€ownership€issue.Ð t$Ä& Ðà ` àPlaintiffs€claim€that€such€unrelated€issues€were€raisedÐ  &p!( Ðin€the€district€court€and€that€the€district€court€erred€by€failingÐ Ì'#* Ðto€reduce€the€award€to€reflect€work€done€on€them.€€Specifically,Ð x)È$, Ðplaintiffs€say€that€the€parties€disagreed€as€to€whether€theÐ $+t&. Ðplaintiffs€would€be€able€to€establish€"benefit€of€the€bargain"Ð ° Ðdamages€on€their€contract€claim€and€whether€such€damages€wereÐ \¬ Ðlimited€to€the€amount€of€the€purchase€price€by€the€terms€of€theÐ X Ðcontract.€€All€indications€are€that€these€were€minor€points;€but,Ð ´  Ðin€any€event,€the€plaintiffs€did€not€make€this€argument€before€theÐ ` ° Ðdistrict€court€so€it€is€forfeited.€€òòDaigleóó€v.€òòMaine€Med.€Ctr.,Ð  \  ÐInc.óó,€14€F.3d€684,€687€(1st€Cir.€1994).Ð ¸  Ðà ` àPlaintiffs€next€say€that€the€ownership€claim€was€aÐ d´  Ðreasonable€one€and€that€the€district€court€should€therefore€haveÐ `  Ðnot€awarded€attorney's€fees.€€Section€505,€quoted€in€full€above,Ð ¼  Ðsays€that€the€district€court€"in€its€discretion€may€allow€theÐ h¸ Ðrecovery€of€full€costs"€including€an€attorney's€fee.€€Under€theÐ d Ðcase€law,€dishonesty€is€not€required€for€an€award;€even€a€case€thatÐ À Ðis€merely€objectively€quite€weak€can€warrant€such€an€award.€Ð l¼ ÐòòMatthewsóó,€157€F.3d€at€29.Ð h Ðà ` àThis€case€is€perhaps€unusual€because€at€first€blush€itÐ Ä Ðmight€appear€as€if€the€plaintiffs€had€a€colorable€claim€that€HodgesÐ pÀ  Ðhad€purchased,€and€InvesSys€now€owned,€the€AIM€copyright.€€TheÐ !l" Ðclear€language€of€the€written€contract,€presumed€to€reflect€theÐ È"$ Ðparties'€intent,€explicitly€included€AIM,€and€McGraw„Hill€obviouslyÐ t$Ä& Ðexhibited€remarkable€negligence€in€failing€to€detect€the€apparentÐ  &p!( Ðerror€despite€its€officials'€review€of€the€written€contract.€Ð Ì'#* Ðâ âFurther,€under€the€applicable€New€York€law,€McGraw„Hill€had€aÐ x)È$, Ðheightened€burden€to€prove€the€error€by€clear€and€convincingÐ ° Ðevidence.Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àNevertheless,€the€closer€one€looks€at€the€circumstances,Ð X Ðthe€more€dubious€plaintiffs'€ownership€claim€appears.€€MostÐ ´  Ðimportant€is€the€underlying€transaction€related€to€MaPS,€which€wasÐ ` ° Ðpurchased€for€a€quite€modest€sum€just€under€$20,000.€€The€DOS„basedÐ  \  Ðpredecessor€programs€were€added€at€Hodges'€request€after€theÐ ¸  Ðoriginal€bargaining€and€at€no€additional€cost.€€AIM€was€òònotóó€aÐ d´  Ðpredecessor€program,€was€not€part€of€MaPS€and„„mostÐ `  Ðsignificantlyð!ðwas€generating€about€$3„4€million€per€year.€€EvenÐ ¼  Ðthough€there€was€evidence€that€McGraw„Hill€was€planning€to€replaceÐ h¸ ÐAIM€reasonably€soon,€the€idea€that€it€deliberately€intended€toÐ d Ðtransfer€a€program€then€generating€millions€for€nothing€isÐ À Ðperverse.Ð l¼ Ðà ` àStill,€it€might€well€have€made€the€case€arguable€if€thereÐ h Ðhad€been€substantial€negotiations€about€the€transfer€of€the€AIMÐ Ä Ðprogram.€€Yet,€while€McGraw„Hill€admitted€that€Hodges€hadÐ pÀ  Ðapproached€Manning€about€the€subject€and€had€been€told€to€take€itÐ !l" Ðup€with€Thornton,€Thornton€testified€at€trial€that€he€had€notÐ È"$ Ðoffered€AIM€to€Hodges;€Hodges€said€that€there€was€discussion€and€aÐ t$Ä& Ðdeal.€€It€is€a€fair€inference,€from€both€the€result€and€theÐ  &p!( Ðsurrounding€circumstances,€that€the€jury€and€the€trial€judge€bothÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âcredited€Thornton's€version€of€events€over€Hodges'.Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àThere€were€other€circumstances€supporting€McGraw„Hill'sÐ ° Ðâ âposition.€€The€evidence€did€not€show€that€a€launch€date€for€McGraw„Ð \¬ ÐHill's€supposed€successor€system€was€so€clearly€imminent€that€AIMÐ X Ðwas€going€to€be€obsolete€in€McGraw„Hill's€hands€at€the€time€ofÐ ´  ÐHodges'€alleged€purchase€of€AIM,€nor€did€the€contract€contain€anyÐ ` ° Ðprovision€by€which€Hodges€licensed€AIM€back€to€McGraw„Hill€so€thatÐ  \  Ðit€could€continue,€for€the€present,€to€service€its€current€AIMÐ ¸  Ðclients.€€It€is€difficult€to€believe€that€McGraw„Hill€would€haveÐ d´  Ðsold€an€essential€component€of€a€multi„million€dollar€businessÐ `  Ðwithout€such€a€license€back.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àOf€course,€in€determining€whether€to€award€attorney'sÐ h¸ Ðfees,€the€district€court's€judgment€as€to€the€reasonableness€of€theÐ d Ðoriginal€claim€had€to€rest€on€what€Hodges€knew€when€he€made€andÐ À Ðpressed€his€claim€and€not€merely€on€the€unfavorable€outcome.€€òòCf.óóÐ l¼ ÐòòTangóó€v.€òòState€of€R.I.,€Dep't€of€Elderly€Affairsóó,€163€F.3d€7,€13Ð h Ð(1st€Cir.€1998).€€But€in€this€case,€Hodges€certainly€knew€at€theÐ Ä Ðoutset€of€the€raw€facts€supporting€McGraw„Hill's€position€(òòe.g.óó,Ð pÀ  Ðthe€disparity€between€price€and€value)€and€also€knew€in€factÐ !l" Ðwhether€he€had€had€any€detailed€negotiations€with€Thornton€aboutÐ È"$ Ðwhether€AIM€should€be€included€in€the€deal.€Ð t$Ä& Ðà ` àSo€long€as€the€district€court€correctly€stated€the€legalÐ  &p!( Ðstandard€or€criteria,€review€of€the€award€is€only€for€abuse€ofÐ Ì'#* Ðdiscretion.€€Ô‡XâˆXX XâˆÔòòóó€òòMatthewsóó,€157€F.3d€at€29;€òòcf.óó€òòLotus€Dev.€Corp.óó,€140Ð x)È$, ÐF.3d€at€72.Ô#† XâˆXXXâˆÝ`#Ô€€Plaintiffs€complain€that€the€district€court€did€notÐ $+t&. Ðseriously€consider€the€plaintiffs'€own€evidence€in€support€of€theÐ ° Ðclaim;€but€the€district€court,€having€sat€through€the€trial,€wasÐ \¬ Ðfully€familiar€with€the€background€and€the€direct€testimony€ofÐ X ÐHodges€and€Thornton.€€We€have€no€basis€for€overturning€the€districtÐ ´  Ðcourt's€decision€that€an€award€was€appropriate.Ô‡XâˆXX XâˆÔÐ ` ° Ðà ` àWe€turn€next€to€one€disputed€item€in€the€award.€€TheÐ  \  Ðdistrict€court€allowed€recovery€under€section€505€of€the€costs€ofÐ ¸  Ðlegal€research€done€using€one€of€the€standard€servicesÔ#† XâˆXXXâˆZc#Ô€(Westlaw;Ð d´  ÐLexis).€€Plaintiffs€have€not€preserved€any€claim€that€the€amountÐ `  Ðwas€excessive€or€that€research€was€not€needed.€€Rather,€they€urgeÐ ¼  Ð(as€they€did€unsuccessfully€in€the€district€court)€that€such€a€costÐ h¸ Ðshould€be€treated€as€part€of€law€firm€overhead€(covered€by€theÐ d Ðfirmððs€hourly€fee)€rather€than€as€a€separately€reimbursable€item.Ð À Ðà ` àThis€is€an€issue€on€which€the€courts€have€been€divided;׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð l¼ Ðand,€given€the€ubiquity€of€computer„aided€research€in€law€practice,Ð h Ðthe€issue€deserves€our€full€attention.€€Section€505,€taken€alone,Ð Ä Ðis€not€illuminating:€it€says€only€that€the€court€may€allow€theÐ pÀ  Ðprevailing€party€ð ðfull€costsðð€and€may€award€ð ða€reasonableÐ ° Ðattorneyððs€fee€to€the€prevailing€party€as€part€of€the€costs.ðð€€17Ð \¬ ÐU.S.C.€ðð€505.€€There€is€no€reason€to€think€that€Congress€gave€anyÐ X Ðparticular€thought€to€computer„aided€research.Ð ´  Ðà ` àAlthough€section€505's€ð ðfull€costsðð€language€could€beÐ ` ° Ðdistinguished€from€more€familiar€and€slightly€narrower€wording€inÐ  \  Ðother€fee€shifting€statutes,€òòe.g.óó,€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1988€(2000)€("theÐ ¸  Ðcourt,€in€its€discretion,€may€allow€the€prevailing€party€.€.€.€aÐ d´  Ðreasonable€attorney's€fee€as€part€of€the€costs"),€the€tendency€ofÐ `  Ðthe€courts€has€been€to€treat€most€statutes€similarly€whether€inÐ ¼  Ðallowing€or€disallowing€particular€items.€€The€starting€point€inÐ h¸ Ðmany€casesð!ð„and€the€ending€point€in€some„ð!ðis€that€another€federalÐ d Ðstatute€specifies€various€taxable€ð ðcostsðð€(òòe.g.óó,€"[f]ees€of€theÐ À Ðclerk€and€marshal"€and€"[f]ees€and€disbursements€for€printing€andÐ l¼ Ðwitnesses"),€but€the€list€does€not€include€computer„assistedÐ h Ðresearch.€€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1920€(2000);€òòYasuióó€v.€òòMaui€Elec.€Co.óó,€78€F.Ð Ä ÐSupp.€2d€1124,€1129„30€(D.€Haw.€1999).Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àNevertheless,€the€Supreme€Court€has€endorsed€the€viewÐ !l" Ðthat€òòdisbursementsóó€made€by€an€attorney€and€ordinarily€billedÐ È"$ Ðdirectly€to€the€client€(that€is,€separately€from€the€hourly€orÐ t$Ä& Ðfixed€fee)€can€properly€be€encompassed€within€the€phraseÐ  &p!( Ðð ðattorneyððs€fee,ðð€òòseeóó€òòW.€Va.€Univ.€Hosps.,€Inc.óó€v.€òòCaseyóó,€499€U.S.Ð Ì'#* Ð83,€87€n.3€(1991);€and€it€is€not€uncommon€for€courts€to€allow€suchÐ x)È$, Ðcosts€as€travel,€long€distance€calls,€and€parking€on€top€of€theÐ $+t&. Ðhourly€fee.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòDownesóó€v.€òòVolkswagen€of€Am.,€Inc.óó,€41€F.3d€1132,Ð ° Ð1144€(7th€Cir.€1994);€òòData€Gen.€Corp.óó€v.€òòGrumman€Sys.€SupportÐ \¬ ÐCorp.óó,€825€F.€Supp.€361,€367„68€(D.€Mass.€1993).Ð X Ðà ` àIn€our€view,€computer„assisted€research€should€be€treatedÐ ´  Ðsimilarly€and€reimbursed€under€attorneyððs€fee€statutes€like€sectionÐ ` ° Ð505,€so€long€as€the€research€cost€is€in€fact€paid€by€the€firm€to€aÐ  \  Ðthird„party€provider€and€is€customarily€charged€by€the€firm€to€itsÐ ¸  Ðclients€as€a€separate€disbursement.€€If€it€saves€attorney€time€toÐ d´  Ðdo€research€this€way,€probably€the€hours€billed€are€fewer,€òòHaroco,Ð `  ÐInc.óó€v.€òòAm.€Nat'l€Bank€&€Trust€Co.óó,€38€F.3d€1429,€1440„41€(7th€Cir.Ð ¼  Ð1994);€and€in€any€event€Westlaw€and€Lexis€are€now€as€much€part€ofÐ h¸ Ðlegal€service€as€a€lawyer's€taxi€to€the€courthouse.Ð d Ðà ` àCourts€that€have€resisted€reimbursement€of€computer„Ð À Ðassisted€research€as€part€of€attorneyððs€fees€have€asked€why€thatÐ l¼ Ðcost€should€be€distinguished€from€the€law€firmððs€cost€ofÐ h Ðmaintaining€its€law€book€libraryð!ð„a€cost€that€is€customarilyÐ Ä Ðtreated€as€overhead€to€be€covered€by€the€hourly€or€other€fee€ratherÐ pÀ  Ðthan€billed€as€a€disbursement.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòDebuonoóó,€177€F.€Supp.€2d€atÐ !l" Ð209.€€Some€courts€may€also€think€that,€as€the€hourly€feeÐ È"$ Ðgenerically€covers€ð ðlegal€research,ðð€there€is€a€taint€of€doubleÐ t$Ä& Ðbilling€in€charging€separately€for€Westlaw€or€Lexis.€€òòSeeóó€òòScanlonóóÐ  &p!( Ðv.€òòKessleróó,€23€F.€Supp.€2d€413,€418€(S.D.N.Y.€1998).Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àThe€answer€to€these€concerns€has€something€to€do€withÐ x)È$, Ðeconomics€but€also€with€history€and€record„keeping€practice.€€AsÐ $+t&. Ðconfigured€by€the€provider,€computer„aided€research€is€often€aÐ ° Ðvariable€cost€in€an€individual€caseð!ð„that€is,€the€cost€varies€(fromÐ \¬ Ðzero€upward)€depending€on€the€amount€of€Westlaw€or€Lexis€serviceÐ X Ðused€in€the€case.€€By€contrast,€the€firm€pays€no€more€or€less€forÐ ´  Ðits€library€books,€regardless€of€whether€they€are€pulled€off€theÐ ` ° Ðshelf€for€a€given€law€suit,€so€it€is€described€as€a€fixed€ratherÐ  \  Ðthan€a€variable€cost.Ð ¸  Ðà ` àIn€professional€legal€services,€variable€costs€that€areÐ d´  Ðboth€large€and€easily€assignedð!ð„especially€those€paid€directly€toÐ `  Ðthird„party€vendors„„tend€often€to€be€separately€billed€to€theÐ ¼  Ðclient;€those€not€so€easily€assigned€or€inconvenient€to€track€areÐ h¸ Ðcovered€by€the€hourly€fee.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Separate€billing€does€not€mean€doubleÐ d Ðbilling:€the€computer€services€directly€paid€to€Lexis€or€Westlaw€doÐ À Ðnot€reappear€in€some€concealed€form€as€part€of€the€hourly€rate.€Ð l¼ ÐIndeed,€if€such€services€were€treated€as€overhead,€the€hourly€rateÐ h Ðwould€likely€be€higher.Ð Ä Ðà ` àIt€is€common€knowledge€that€large€law€firms€regularlyÐ pÀ  Ðtrack€computer„assisted€research€costs€ð ðby€clientðð€(both€WestlawÐ !l" Ðand€Lexis€make€this€easy)€and€then€bill€clients€directly€for€thoseÐ È"$ Ðcosts.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòCaseóó€v.€òòUnited€Sch.€Dist.€No.€233óó,€157€F.3dÐ ° Ð1243,€1257„58€(10th€Cir.€1998);€òòCrosbyóó€v.€òòBowater€Inc.€Ret.€PlanÐ \¬ Ðfor€Salaried€Employees€of€Great€N.€Paper,€Inc.óó,€262€F.€Supp.€2dÐ X Ð804,€817€(W.D.€Mich.€2003).€€The€practice€being€so,€we€see€noÐ ´  Ðreason€why€such€costsð!ð„if€paid€to€third„party€providers„„should€notÐ ` ° Ðbe€recovered€under€section€505.€€In€sum,€we€align€ourselves€withÐ  \  Ðthe€courts€that€have€allowed€computer„assisted€research€costs€to€beÐ ¸  Ðrecovered€as€a€separate€item.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð d´  Ðà ` àThe€final€claim€on€appeal,€made€only€by€Hodges,€is€thatÐ `  Ðhe€did€not€personally€claim€ownership€of€the€AIM€copyright,€so€heÐ ¼  Ðpersonally€should€not€have€been€held€liable€by€the€district€courtÐ h¸ Ðfor€fees€and€costs€imposed€under€that€section.€€McGraw„Hill€defendsÐ d Ðthe€district€courtððs€award€against€Hodges€as€well€as€InvesSys,€butÐ À Ðadmits€that€it€has€little€at€stake€as€to€Hodgesðð€personal€liabilityÐ l¼ Ðbecause€full€recovery€by€it€is€assured€by€the€appeal€bond€coveringÐ h Ðboth€plaintiffs.€€Ô‡XâˆXX XâˆÔStill,€the€issue€of€Hodges'€liability€is€notÐ Ä Ðmoot:€€under€the€judgment,€McGraw„Hill€is€free€to€collect€againstÐ pÀ  Ðâ âHodges€personally.Ð !l" Ðà ` àHodges'€argument€rests€on€the€proposition€that€only€theÐ ° Ðâ âowner€of€a€copyright€may€sue€for€infringement€under€the€CopyrightÐ \¬ ÐAct,€and,€because€Hodges€had€previously€transferred€any€ownershipÐ X Ðinterest€he€had€in€AIM€to€his€corporation,€he€therefore€could€notÐ ´  Ðproperly€claim€under€the€Copyright€Act€but€only€under€state€lawÐ ` ° Ð(òòe.g.óó,€for€fraud€or€breach€of€contract).€€This€might€be€beside€theÐ  \  Ðpoint€if€Hodges€had€in€this€case€purported€to€claim€under€theÐ ¸  ÐCopyright€Act,€but€in€this€instance€the€complaint„„althoughÐ d´  Ðsomewhat€ambiguous„„suggests€that€only€InvesSys€was€claiming€underÐ `  Ðthe€Copyright€Act.Ð ¼  ÐÔ#† XâˆXXXâˆ5„#Ôà ` à€The€statute€says€that€the€court€may€allow€ð ðfull€costsððÐ h¸ Ðð ðagainst€any€partyðð€(other€than€the€government€or€its€officers)€andÐ d Ðthat€this€may€include€attorneyððs€fees€in€favor€of€the€prevailingÐ À Ðparty.€€17€U.S.C.€ðð€505.€€At€first€blush€one€might€think€that€thisÐ l¼ Ðgives€the€district€court€òòcarte€blancheóó€to€award€attorneyððs€feesÐ h Ðagainst€anyone€on€the€losing€side€as€to€òòanyóó€claim€ð ðin€any€civilÐ Ä Ðaction€underðð€the€Copyright€Actð!ð„the€subject€matter€with€whichÐ pÀ  Ðsection€505€deals„„but€this€is€surely€too€broad€a€reading.Ð !l" Ðà ` àA€civil€action€in€which€a€federal€copyright€claim€isÐ È"$ Ðasserted€arises€ð ðunderðð€the€Copyright€Act,€òòseeóó€òòT.B.€Harms€Co.óó€v.Ð t$Ä& ÐòòEliscuóó,€339€F.2d€823,€828„29€(2d€Cir.€1964),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€381€U.S.Ð  &p!( Ð915€(1965),€regardless€of€whether€non„copyright€claims€are€assertedÐ Ì'#* Ðas€well.€€Yet,€Congressðð€obvious€concern€in€section€505€was€inÐ x)È$, Ðfacilitating€the€assertion€and€defense€of€òòcopyrightóó€claims„ð!ðnotÐ $+t&. Ðother€kinds€of€claims.€€òòCf.óó€òòEntm't€Research€Groupóó,€122€F.3d€atÐ ° Ð1230,€1232;€òòYankee€Candleóó,€140€F.€Supp.€2d€at€122„23.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àThis€is€why€courts€implementing€section€505€tend€almostÐ X Ðautomatically€to€allocate€attorneyððs€fees€and€costs€betweenÐ ´  Ðcopyright€and€non„copyright€claims€where€this€can€feasibly€be€done,Ð ` ° Ðlimiting€recovery€to€costs€causally€associated€with€the€copyrightÐ  \  Ðclaim.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòYankee€Candleóó,€140€F.€Supp.€2d€at€122„123.€€There€wasÐ ¸  Ðno€apportionment€here€only€because€the€litigated€issue€was€commonÐ d´  Ðto€both€copyright€and€non„copyright€claims,€so€the€same€costs€wouldÐ `  Ðhave€been€incurred€for€the€former€alone.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àThe€same€apportionment€philosophy€ought€presumptively€toÐ h¸ Ðguide€liability€as€among€parties.€€If€Hodges€had€no€associationÐ d Ðwith€the€copyright€claim€but€were€a€party€to€the€case€for€unrelatedÐ À Ðreasons,€€an€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€against€Hodges€under€sectionÐ l¼ Ð505€would€be€improper€even€though€McGraw„Hill€would€still€haveÐ h Ðprevailed€against€InvesSys€in€an€action€ð ðunderðð€the€Copyright€Act.Ð Ä ÐSuch€a€situation€is€not€that€difficult€to€imagine,€given€thatÐ pÀ  Ðfederal€joinder€rules€tend€to€be€generous€as€to€both€parties€andÐ !l" Ðclaims.€€òòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€18,€20.Ð È"$ Ðà ` àHowever,€this€does€not€mean€that€Hodges€oughtÐ t$Ä& Ðautomatically€be€exempted€from€liability€merely€because€he€is€notÐ  &p!( Ðproperly€a€claimant€under€the€Copyright€Act€and€did€not€explicitlyÐ Ì'#* Ðassert€such€a€copyright€claim€in€the€complaint.€€In€this€instance,Ð x)È$, ÐHodges€was€a€party€to€the€complaint€but€not€only€that:€€he€wasÐ $+t&. Ðintimately€involved€in€the€transaction€allegedly€giving€rise€to€theÐ ° Ðcopyright€claim,€owned€the€company€asserting€the€claim,€was€a€keyÐ \¬ Ðwitness€in€fostering€the€claim€in€this€case,€and€stood€to€benefitÐ X Ðsubstantially€if€the€imposture€had€succeeded.Ð ´  Ðà ` àUnder€such€circumstances,€we€think€that€section€505'sÐ ` ° Ðpolicy,€as€well€as€its€language,€permits€the€award€to€run€againstÐ  \  ÐHodges€as€well€as€against€InvesSys.€€òòHughesóó€v.€òòNovi€American,€Inc.óó,Ð ¸  Ð724€F.2d€122,€126€(Fed.€Cir.€1984),€may€lend€a€measure€of€supportÐ d´  Ðto€this€view;€in€any€event,€nothing€flatly€to€the€contrary€has€beenÐ `  Ðcited€to€us.€€Hodges€was€peculiarly€responsible€for€this€copyrightÐ ¼  Ðclaim€on€several€different€levels€òòandóó€was€a€party€to€that€case€òòandóóÐ h¸ Ðthe€deterrence€policy€of€the€statute€well€fits€his€conduct.€€ThatÐ d Ðis€enough€for€this€case.€€Future€decisions€will€have€to€mark€outÐ À Ðthe€boundary€as€new€fact€situations€present€themselves.Ð l¼ Ðà ` àThere€are€certainly€arguments€for€a€flat€rule€that€onlyÐ h Ða€losing€party€formally€on€one€side€of€a€copyright€claim€can€beÐ Ä Ðheld€liable€for€costs€under€section€505.€€It€would€be€easy€toÐ pÀ  Ðadminister€and€avoid€possible€asymmetries;€if€Hodges€had€not€beenÐ !l" Ða€party€then€(veil€piercing€aside)€he€would€not€be€liable€evenÐ È"$ Ðthough€equally€"responsible"€for€the€claim.€€But€such€a€mechanicalÐ t$Ä& Ðapproach€would€also€be€a€judicial€creation,€since€the€statute'sÐ  &p!( Ðlanguage€imposes€no€such€flat€rule;€and€it€would€be€less€responsiveÐ Ì'#* Ðto€the€underlying€policies.€€Imagine€that€there€had€been€no€appealÐ x)È$, Ðbond€and€InvesSys€had€no€assets€of€its€own.Ð $+t&. ÐÔ‡XâˆXX XâˆÔà ` àThis€case€was€well€handled€and€properly€decided.€Ð ° ÐHowever,€whatever€fault€can€be€imputed€to€the€plaintiffs€for€makingÐ \¬ Ðthe€claim,€all€but€one€of€the€issues€raised€on€appeal€presentedÐ X Ðserious€legal€questions,€and€the€appeal€was€legitimately€pursued.€Ð ´  ÐWe€have€no€inclination€to€make€a€separate€award€of€attorneyððs€feesÐ ` ° Ðto€McGraw„Hill€for€work€done€on€the€appeal,€although€the€usualÐ  \  Ðaward€of€statutory€costs€is€allowed.Ð ¸  Ðà ` àòòAffirmedóó.Ô#† XâˆXXXâˆV#Ô