It is possible, without setting rivets, that in the realm of academic ethics, when it comes to quoting an entire sentence word for word from a particular source, it is appropriate to clarify that it is a quote, for example, by means of quotations (as was done in the research proposal of defendant 1, but not in the defendants' article). However , in the realm of copyright, given that this is only one sentence at the end of which the relevant reference to the source from which it was taken was brought, and since it is an idea in any case, it is not a violation of any kind.
- The additional examples cited in the plaintiffs' summaries are from the opinion of Bobrov, an expert in the field of quality and reliability. However, here too we are dealing with examples of distinct ideas, similar to those brought in the Vaknin opinion, and no example of the way an idea is expressed.
Thus, Dr. Bobrov referred to the finding in paragraph 4(9) of the defendants' article that the current standards of ISO standards are not suitable for the G-QMS (Global Quality Management System), as well as to the conclusion 5.2.5 of the defendants' article that the structure of the ISO standard should be treated as a framework for extension to the G-QMS quality management system:
"ISO for QMS is limited and doesn't satisfy for G-QMS"
"Structures of the ISO Standards as a Framework to be extended for G-QMS"
As stated above, these are mere ideas, and not in the way of expressing an idea. The table also details the plaintiff's sources from which the findings and conclusions were supposedly taken, and even these include only ideas, the main of which is the need to expand the procedural approach to the aforementioned ISO standards .
Thus, the findings in paragraph 4(11) of the defendants' article, and the conclusion 5.26 in the defendants' article, to which Dr. Bobrov referred in the second part of the table that was presented in the plaintiffs' summaries:
"ISO standard for QMS as a framework to be extended for G-QMS"