The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed by an equally divided court. Amici do not hold identical views on all issues arising from the application of law to computer programs. Audio transcription for opinion announcement january 16, 1996 in lotus development corporation v. Georgetown university liability of hospital for hivtainted blood infusion. The lotus development corporation was founded by mitchell kapor, a friend of the developers of visicalc. If you as a reseller wanted to offer windows 95, you knew which way to jump. The judgment of the united states court of appeals for the first circuit is affirmed by an equally divided court. View notes 1995 lotus abridged from law 33800a at harvard university. S supreme court, and in january 1996, five years after the suit began, the court affirmed the appeals court ruling for borland.
Lotus contended in its motion that borland had copied lotus 123s entire user interface and had thereby infringed lotus s s. Software apis are designed to allow developers to insure compatibility, but should apis be found. Neither the lotus brief to this court nor the briefs of its two amici4 explain what is really at stake in this case, or why lotus sternburg alexandra 8292012 for educational use only. Lotus lost touch with its, and succumbed to a hostile bid from ibm. The protection for a book explaining an art or system extends only to the authors unique explanation of it and does not prevent others from using the system or the forms incidentally used. Nonetheless, borland s programs continued to be partially compatible with lotus 123, for borland retained what it called. Nonetheless, borlands programs continued to be partially compatible with lotus 123, for borland retained what it called. This article is based on a brief amici curiae filed by the authors with the first circuit court of appeals in lotus dev. Google used some of the java api declarations to build. Lotus contended in its motion that borland had copied lotus 123s entire user interface and had thereby infringed lotuss s. However, the supreme court did not make binding precedent in lotus v. A summary and case brief of lotus development corp. Lotus 123 is a spreadsheet computer program that enables users to perform various functions and calculations.
Lotus development corporation, plaintiff, appellee, v. Borland included the lotus menu command hierarchy in its programs to make them compatible with lotus 123 so that spreadsheet users who were already familiar with lotus 123 would be able to switch to the borland programs without having to learn new commands or rewrite their lotus macros. The court ordered a slightly accelerated briefing schedule as follows. The programs menu options were arranged in a specific menu command hierarchy. The first is a memorandum and order in this case, lotus dev. Borland appeals from the district courts order denying its motion for attorneys fees and costs incurred during extended litigation concerning its alleged infringement of plaintiffappellee lotus development corporations lotus. Borland accomplished this by adding a feature that let lotus users execute the same command sequences they were used.
Editors foreword the issue dealt with in this amici curiae brief is the balancing of the two congressional mandates, set forth in 17 u. This article was originally published in massachusetts lawyers weekly in april 1995. On july 31, 1992, the district court denied borlands motion and granted lotuss motion in part. Applying fundamental copyright principles to lotus. To aid its growth, in the uk, and possibly elsewhere, lotus 123 was the very first computer. To resolve the case, the court had to decide whether borland had gone too far, and thereby infringed lotuss 9 in its lotus 123 computer program, by copying the lotus 123 command 6. Borland, the first circuit validated appellant borland s contention that it had lawfully copied unprotectable aspects of lotus popular spreadsheet program for use in a similar product.
On july 31, 1992, the district court denied borland s motion and granted lotus s motion in part. By then, philippe kahn head of borland had flogged quattro pro to novell, and microsoft used its monopoly power to leverage ms office onto new pcs. Lotus development corporation lotus ed a computer spreadsheet program called lotus 123. This case summaries is brought to you for free and open access by the college of law at via sapientiae. Borland appeals from the district courts order denying its motion for attorneys fees and costs incurred during extended litigation concerning its alleged infringement of plaintiffappellee lotus development corporations lotus in a computer program, lotus 123. Borland, under kahns leadership took a position of principle and announced that they would defend against lotus legal position and fight for programmers rights. Lotus 123 also allowed users to write macros, which designate a certain series of commands to be executed with a single keystroke. Factual background borland had copied the lotus 123 menu command hierarchy to enable prior lotus users to switch to borlands spreadsheet software without having to learn new commands or rewrite their lotus macros. To resolve the case, the court had to decide whether borland had gone too far, and thereby infringed lotus s 9 in its lotus 123 computer program, by copying the lotus 123 command 6.
The interfaces thereby facilitated development of programs in the java language. The motion of intellectual property owners for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. Readings law for the entrepreneur and manager sloan. A computer menu command hierarchy is not able subject matter. Brief amicus curiae of copyright law professors in lotus. The united states district court for the district of massachusetts district court held that borland infringed on lotuss because lotuss command terms. Background information appears in two earlier documents issued by this court. Court of appeals for the first circuit issued a radically conservative decision in the case of lotus development corporation v. On august 7, 1992, judge vaughn walker ordered partial summary judgment against apple computer, inc. In particular, we must decide whether, as the district court held, plaintiffappellee lotus development corporations in lotus 123, a computer spreadsheet program, was infringed by defendantappellant borland international, inc. You are not responsible for the business disputes lecture on the final exercise. Lexis 470 brought to you by free law project, a nonprofit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. By ruling in borlands favor, the court provided remaining circuits. Go to your schools computer lab or a pc software store and experiment with current versions of any two of the quattro, excel, or lotus 123 spreadsheet programs.
State early case on liability of an hmo for poor medical care kozup v. We need not consider whether 761 of dohsa calls into question the district courts determination that the decedents mother is a proper party to this suit, or its grant of a jury trial, see romero v. In particular, we must decide whether, as the district court held, plaintiffappellee lotus development corporations in lotus 123, a computer spreadsheet. Lotus plaintiff marketed a computer spreadsheet program, lotus 123. Borland has been used as a lens through which to view the controversial case in oracle america, inc. To aid its growth, in the uk, and possibly elsewhere, lotus 123 was the very first computer software to use television.
Lotus plaintiff marketed a computer spreadsheet program, lotus 1. On petition for a writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the first circuit brief in opposition to petition for certiorari introduction and summary the court of appeals in this case held that the commands used to operate a computer. In 1987, borland released spreadsheet programs quattro and quattro pro, which competed with lotus 123 and contained virtually identical copies of the 1. Borland also had to make the program easily usable to the millions of people who were trained in the use of lotus. The district court ruled that the lotus menu command hierarchy was able expression because. Defendant borland international, incorporated borland has infringed plaintiffs s in the computer software program lotus 123 by its development, manufacture and sale of. The second is an opinion in a related case involving claims of infringement of s for the lotus 123 program. The supreme court granted lotus petition for certiorari on september 27, 1995. This case is discussed in legal protection of digital information in. Assume that you are the manager of borlands software development. Lotus development corporation had sued borland international, inc.
1407 315 849 852 851 721 505 1294 1154 510 674 424 1309 141 1460 466 528 260 300 1143 1541 641 290 543 815 169 643 55 946 770 130 979 1317 38 396 423 1340 1176 250 1050