curriculum comes directly from Lyons’s by-laws. This bold statement lacks support, however, because a comparison of both curriculae reveals that their differences overwhelm any similarities. Firstly, Lyons and the College organize the curriculum differently. The College divides the curriculum into core knowledge, a canine specialization, and an equine specialization. Petition 8-11. In contrast, Lyons’s curriculum does not directly provide for separate equine and canine tracks from its outset, though objective two of the “Objectives and General Structure” document does discuss creating two certification paths for equine and canines. See ACVSMR Bylaws 2-6; ACVSMR Objectives 1. Secondly, th ions of the ACVSMR’s curriculum, there is no substantial similarity. See Harney, 704 F.3d at 181 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the College’s Petition contains
holding as a matter of law that adaptations of subject matter or expressions in the public domain cannot support a finding of copyright infringement holding that while the computer program at issue was within the subject matter of copyright the right sought under state law pursuant to a license was not equivalent to the exclusive rights under copyright as such copyright preemption did not apply holding that divergent expressions of unprotected ideas does not violate copyright law recognizing that copyright offices interpretation of copyright act should ordinarily receive deference holding that legislative immunity is not forfeited simply because the activities if unprotected might violate a plaintiffs first amendment rights