Other Municipal Applications 23/81 Hershko v. Orbuch, IsrSC 42(3) 749, 759 [1988] (hereinafter: the Hershko case) noted that the distinction between an idea and its expression depends on the circumstances:
"It is not necessary to determine in advance when an idea is an idea and when it is a matter of its implementation, but it all depends on the circumstances: the same set of facts can be considered one matter an idea and the implementation of an idea in another. In a broad sense, there is nothing original, but every invention or "idea" is a development of a previous invention or "idea."
In the same parasha, the alleged similarities between books and arithmetic study were examined, and in the process, the distinction between an idea and the way it is expressed was also demonstrated. Thus, for example, it was ruled that the idea of using surprise tickets was not protected, as distinct from a situation in which it was found that the content of the tickets was similar (paragraph 38 of the judgment).
In the Motsafi case, 15 points of similarity between books and language study were examined in detail. With regard to some of the components, such as learning in ascending order of difficulty, and the very use of tables, charts, and acronyms, it was found that this is only an idea. In the end, only a few similarities were found, from many examples in the textbook, and it was ruled that even if a copy was made, it was not a "real and substantial part" of the protected work, and therefore there was no copyright infringement.
Another example of the dismissal of a claim in circumstances in which it was found that it was only an idea is found in other municipal applications 2682/11 Petah Tikva Municipality v. Zissu [Nevo] (May 20, 2023, hereinafter: the Zissu case). In this case, the Supreme Court (the Honorable Justice, now the Vice-President, v. Sohlberg) ruled that the idea of locating dog owners who left dog droppings in the public domain by testing DNA in their feces and comparing it with data from a dog's genetic database is only an idea, which is not the subject of copyright, and this is distinct from a presentation and a research proposal that has not been proven to be used (see in particular paragraphs 38-42 of the judgment).