In the case of Jay Palmer et al. v. BRG of Georgia, Inc., et al., 1990, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over copyright infringement involving computer software. The plaintiffs were programmers who had developed specific software for their employer, BRG of Georgia (BRG). After leaving BRG and starting their own company, they created similar software which led to accusations from BRG that they had infringed upon its copyrights by using elements from the original program in their new product. The court ruled in favor of Palmer and his colleagues on two main grounds: firstly because facts and ideas are not protected under copyright law - only expressions are; secondly because there was no substantial similarity between the programs beyond these unprotected elements. This ruling clarified that while certain aspects such as structure or organization could be copyrighted if sufficiently creative or original, basic programming techniques cannot be monopolized through copyright protection.

In the dissenting opinion for Jay Palmer et al. v. BRG of Georgia, Inc., et al., it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a federal court in Alabama to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant based on a single phone call made by the plaintiff from within Alabama was incorrect and overly broadened the scope of personal jurisdiction. The dissenting justices believed this interpretation could potentially violate due process rights as it did not sufficiently consider whether or not it would be fair and reasonable to force an out-of-state defendant into court in another state based solely on such minimal contact with that state. They also expressed concerns about potential negative impacts on interstate commerce if businesses had to worry about being sued anywhere they conducted business via telephone calls.