Section menu
Internet Cases
Digital Home Viacom v. You Tube Field v. Google Google Book Search Ellison v. AOL Kelly v. Arriba MGM v. Grokster Fonovisa v. Cherry ALS Scan v. Remarq Perfect10 v. CC BillSoftware Cases
Sega v. Accolade Lotus v. Borland Whelan v. Jaslow CA v. AltaiSoftware Issues
Licensing Ontologies Open Source GNU LicensingWebsite Issues
Web Protection Web Design Linking NewgroupsDMCA
DMCA Overview Safe Harbor Takedown Notice Subpoena NII SDMI Hacking BillMisrepresentation
Overview Arista v. MP3Board Diebold v. OPG Rossi v. Universal Lenz v. Universal Sony BMGSource
Lotus Development Corporation v. Borland International, Inc.,
49 F.3d 807 (1995)
(Aff'd per curiam by evenly divided Court, 116 S. Ct. 804 (1996))


Copyright Casebook
Lotus v. Borland
Spreadsheet
War
is a software developer
whose major claim to fame was the previously market dominant spreadsheet
program Lotus 1-2-3. After years of market dominance, Lotus began losing market
share to upstart Borland's Quattro Pro spreadsheet program. While Quattro Pro
brought many technical and interface advantages to the market, Borland also had
to make the program easily usable to the millions of people who were trained in
the use of Lotus. Borland accomplished this by adding a feature that let Lotus
users execute the same command sequences they were used to from Lotus within
Quattro Pro. This feature has since been emulated by Microsoft Word, which
includes the option for people trained in WordPerfect to use that command
hierarchy within Word.
Lotus
responded to this innovation with a copyright infringement action against
Borland claiming a proprietary interest in the Lotus 1-2-3 command hierarchy.
When the emulation feature is activated, Quattro Pro included 469 commands
identical to those found in Lotus 1-2-3. Quattro Pro's developers arranged
these commands in the same hierarchical fashion, using more than 50 menus and
submenus, as the hierarchy found in the Lotus program.
The court reasoned that the commands, and their hierarchical ordering, constitute the electronic operation of the software program, and that constitutes a method by which the computer is operated. Since the Copyright Act excludes protection to procedures or methods of operation, the use of the software's command to operate the computer software itself is not protectable by copyright.
Legislative
Intent
The court pointed out that the legislature intended to excluding electronic operation from copyright protection. While revising the Copyright Act in 1976, Congress stated that:
"Section 102(b) is intended, among other things, to make clear that the expression adopted by the computer programmer is the copyrightable element of a computer program, and that the actual process or methods embodied within the program are not within the scope of copyright law."
Congress thereby limited the definition of copyright protection available to a computer program to its literary form, the actual statements and instructions of the source code, and excluded from protection the program's electronic operation.