Lotus Development Corporation Case Study
|Lotus Development Corporation v. Borland International, Inc.|
|Argued January 8, 1996|
Decided January 16, 1996
|Full case name||Lotus Development Corporation v. Borland International, Inc.|
|Citations||516 U.S.233 (more) |
116 S. Ct. 804; 133 L. Ed. 2d 610; 1996 U.S. LEXIS 470
|Prior history||Lotus claimed copyright infringement by Borland's Quattro Pro product. The district court ruled for Lotus. 831 F. Supp. 202 (D.Mass.1993). The First Circuit reversed, finding that the allegedly infringing features of Quattro Pro were a "method of operation" not subject to copyright. 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995). Lotus petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted; however, because of a split opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed.|
|The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is affirmed by an equally divided Court.|
|Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.|
|17 U.S.C. section 102(b)|
Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc., 516 U.S. 233 (1996), is a United States Supreme Court case that tested the extent of software copyright. The lower court had held that copyright does not extend to the user interface of a computer program, such as the text and layout of menus. Due to the recusal of one justice, the Supreme Court decided the case with an eight-member bench that split evenly, leaving the lower court's decision affirmed but setting no national precedent.
Borland released a spreadsheet product, Quattro Pro, that had a compatibility mode in which its menu imitated that of Lotus 1-2-3, a competing product. None of the source code or machine code that generated the menus was copied, but the names of the commands and the organization of those commands into a hierarchy were virtually identical.
Quattro Pro also contained a feature called "Key Reader", which allowed it to execute Lotus 1-2-3 keyboard macros. In order to support this feature, Quattro Pro's code contained a copy of Lotus's menu hierarchy in which each command was represented by its first letter instead of its entire name.
Borland CEO Philippe Kahn took the case to the software development community arguing that Lotus's position would stifle innovation and damage the future of software development. The vast majority of the software development community supported Borland's position.
District Court case
Lotus filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on July 2, 1990, claiming that the structure of the menus was copyrighted by Lotus. The district court ruled that Borland had infringed Lotus's copyright. The ruling was based in part on the fact that an alternative satisfactory menu structure could be designed. For example, the "Quit" command could be changed to "Exit."
Borland immediately removed the Lotus-based menu system from Quattro Pro, but retained support for its "Key Reader" feature, and Lotus filed a supplemental claim against this feature. A district court held that this also constituted copyright infringement.
Circuit Court case
Borland appealed the decision of the district court arguing that the menu hierarchy is a "method of operation," which is not copyrightable according to 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court's decision, agreeing with Borland's legal theory that considered the menu hierarchy a "method of operation." The court agreed with the district court that an alternative menu hierarchy could be devised, but argued that despite this, the menu hierarchy is an uncopyrightable "method of operation."
We hold that the Lotus menu command hierarchy is an uncopyrightable “method of operation.” The Lotus menu command hierarchy provides the means by which users control and operate Lotus 1–2–3. If users wish to copy material, for example, they use the “Copy” command. If users wish to print material, they use the “Print” command. Users must use the command terms to tell the computer what to do. Without the menu command hierarchy, users would not be able to access and control, or indeed make use of, Lotus 1–2–3's functional capabilities.
The court made an analogy between the menu hierarchy and the arrangement of buttons on a VCR. The buttons are used to control the playback of a video tape, just as the menu commands are used to control the operations of Lotus 1-2-3. Since the buttons are essential to operating the VCR, their layout cannot be copyrighted. Likewise, the menu commands, including the textual labels and the hierarchical layout, are essential to operating Lotus 1-2-3.
The court also considered the impact of their decision on users of software. If menu hierarchies were copyrightable, users would be required to learn how to perform the same operation in a different way for every program, which the court finds "absurd." Additionally, all macros would have to be re-written for each different program, which places an undue burden on users.
Michael Boudin wrote a concurring opinion for this case. In this opinion, he discusses the costs and benefits of copyright protection, as well as the potential similarity of software copyright protection to patent protection. He argues that software is different from creative works, which makes it difficult to apply copyright law to software.
His opinion also considers the theory that Borland's use of the Lotus menu is "privileged." That is, because Borland copied the menu for a legitimate purpose of compatibility, its use should be allowed. This decision, if issued by the majority of the court, would have been narrower in scope than the "method of operations" decision. Copying a menu hierarchy would be allowed in some circumstances, and disallowed in others.
Supreme Court case
Lotus petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment due to an evenly divided court, with Justice Stevens recusing. Lotus's petition for a rehearing by the full court was denied. By the time the lawsuit ended, Borland had sold Quattro Pro to Novell, and Microsoft's Excel spreadsheet had emerged as the main challenger to Lotus 1-2-3.
The Lotus decision establishes a distinction in copyright law between the interface of a software product and its implementation. The implementation is subject to copyright. The public interface may also be subject to copyright to the extent that it contains expression (for example, the appearance of an icon). However, the set of available operations and the mechanics of how they are activated are not copyrightable.:211–215 This standard allows software developers to create competing versions of copyrighted software products without infringing the copyright. See software clone for infringement and compliance cases.
- ^ abLotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc., 516U.S.233 (1996).
- ^Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 831 F.Supp. 202 (D.Mass.1993)
- ^Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 815 (1st Cir. 1995)
- ^"Justia: Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland Intern., Inc., 831 F. Supp. 202 (D. Mass. 1993)".
- ^Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 817 (1st Cir. 1995)
- ^Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 818 (1st Cir. 1995)
- ^Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 819-21 (1st Cir. 1995) (Boudin, J., concurring)
- ^Whong, Jason A.; Lee, Andrew T. S. (1996). "Lotus v. Borland: Defining the Limits of Software Copyright Protection". Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal. 12 (1): 207–217.
From our private database of 13,400+ case briefs...
Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1996)
Lotus Development Corp. (Lotus) (plaintiff) developed a computer menu command hierarchy that allowed users to operate Lotus’s computer spreadsheet program, called Lotus 1-2-3. Specifically, the hierarchy allowed users to enter a command, such as “copy” or “print,” and the program would carry out the corresponding function. It was not possible to operate Lotus 1-2-3 without the hierarchy. Borland International (Borland) (defendant) copied Lotus’s menu command hierarchy to create its own computer program. Lotus brought suit against Borland for copyright infringement. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (District Court) held that Borland infringed on Lotus’s copyright because Lotus’s command terms could be easily be altered (i.e., “quit” could easily be called “exit) with no change in functionality. As a result, according to the District Court, Lotus’s arrangement and naming of its menu tree was copyrightable. Borland appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Stahl, J.)
Concurrence (Boudin, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 151,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,400 briefs, keyed to 183 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.