CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Comprehensive Technologies International, Inc. v. Software Artisans, Inc.

U.S. federal court case

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionFeb 12, 2026
Entity authorityQ5156997 ↗
Source-derived summary

Comprehensive Technologies International, Inc. v. Software Artisans, Inc., 3 F.3d 730 (4th Cir. 1993) was a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit discussed legal tests for software copyright infringement, and ruled that trade secret misappropriation requires more than circumstantial evidence. The case also ruled on what terms may be reasonable and enforceable in non-compete agreements.

Background

Virginia-based Comprehensive Technologies International (CTI) primarily dealt with defense-related services. In 1988, they created a software group and expanded into Electronic Data Interchange with Claims Express, targeted at the medical industries, and EDI Link, designed to make and use a range of forms.

In February 1991, with EDI Link incomplete, seven CTI employees left the company and formed Software Artisans, Inc. (SA) in April 1991. Software Artisans created a program called Transend which also used EDI transmission to send forms.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Comprehensive Technologies International, Inc. v. Software Artisans, Inc.” as u.S. federal court case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Comprehensive, Technologies and International.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1993, 1988, 1991—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Comprehensive, Technologies and International providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Comprehensive Technologies International, Inc. v. Software Artisans, Inc.”, the useful work is to connect “u.S. federal court case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Feb 12, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5156997. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1993, 1988 and 1991.

Critical limits

A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Comprehensive Technologies International, Inc. v. Software Artisans, Inc.”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Comprehensive Technologies International, Inc. v. Software Artisans, Inc. primary sources, Comprehensive Technologies International, Inc. v. Software Artisans, Inc. archive and Comprehensive research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Comprehensive Technologies International, Inc. v. Software Artisans, Inc.”?
  2. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
  3. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Comprehensive Technologies International, Inc. v. Software Artisans, Inc.” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.