COURT SPLIT OVER COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR COMPUTER PROGRAM
Jason Romney (jromney@werple.mira.net.au)
Mon, 22 Jan 1996 14:46:14 +1100
COURT SPLIT OVER COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR COMPUTER PROGRAM
__________________________________________________________________________
Copyright © 1996 Nando.net
Copyright © 1996 The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (Jan 16, 1996 12:52 p.m. EST) -- An evenly divided Supreme
Court today denied copyright protection to the user-friendly part of a
computer program that tells how to use the system.
The justices, by a 4-4 vote, upheld a lower court's ruling in a case
involving the "menu command" portion of Lotus Development Corp.'s
Lotus 1-2-3 software system.
A federal appeals court had rejected Lotus' argument that it should be
granted copyright protection.
The case was argued before eight justices on Jan. 8, when most of the
nation's capital was shut down because of a blizzard that left Justice
John Paul Stevens stranded at his winter home in Florida.
But Stevens previously had disqualified himself from the case, for
unannounced reasons.
Although today's vote upholds the lower court's decision, its status
as a legal precedent is shaky because the issue could return to the
court when all nine justices are available to hear the case.
The court's brief, unsigned opinion gave no rationale, and did not say
which justices voted to uphold or reverse the lower court.
Lotus had sued Borland International Inc., saying it wrongfully
imitated the command menu in the Lotus 1-2-3 system. Lotus 1-2-3 is a
spreadsheet program that provides tabular and graphic display formats.
Users operate the program through its command menu.
The program was widely used after being introduced in 1983, and other
companies began offering competition. Lotus, now an IBM subsidiary
based in Cambridge, Mass., sued Borland in 1990 over the command menus
Borland used in its spreadsheet formats "Quattro" and "Quattro Pro."
A federal judge ruled that Borland had infringed on the Lotus 1-2-3
menu.
But the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling and
threw out the case. The court noted that federal copyright law
protects certain aspects of computer programs, but said the command
menu does not qualify for protection because it amounts to a "method
of operation."
The appeals court said the menu was similar to the buttons on a
videocassette recorder.
During last week's oral argument, Lotus attorney Henry B. Gutman told
the justices the software's command menu was a literary work entitled
to the same protection given to musical scores or works of
choreography.
But Borland's lawyer, Gary L. Reback, said the words in the menu were
more like basic English grammar, which cannot be copyrighted in the
same way as written English compositions.
Reback said Lotus should have to meet the higher standard required for
patent protection.
The case is Lotus Development vs. Borland International, 94-2003.