Executive Intellectual Property Bulletin

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Lotus v. Borland Software Copyright Case

On January 16, 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in the important software copyright case Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc.. The Court's decision was "affirmed by an equally divided court." Because the Court was divided 4 to 4 on this case, no precedent was set.

This lawsuit was brought by Lotus, the developer of the popular Lotus 1-2-3 computer spreadsheet program. Lotus alleged that Borland's use of the Lotus command hierarchy in Borland's Quatro Pro spreadsheet program constituted copyright infringement. The district court sided with Lotus. On appeal, the First Circuit court reversed the district court decision and held that although copyright can exist in software, the Lotus 1-2-3 command hierarchy (the tree structure of commands such as "Save" and "Print") was not protected by copyright law because it was a "method of operation." This agrees with copyright law's exclusion from copyright protection any "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery." The First Circuit found the command hierarchy was analogous to the buttons on a VCR. Such controls are outside the scope of copyright.

While the Supreme Court's decision fails to clarify the copyrightability of command hierarchies at a national level, we expect the current trend toward circumscribing copyright protection for software will continue. Therefore, we recommend that patent protection be seriously considered for command hierarchies and other such user-interface components. It is well settled that patents are available for these software elements.

For more information on this case and how this decision may affect industry and trade, please contact Steven W. Lundberg or any one of the other attorneys at Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. at 612-339-0331 or by facsimile at 612-339-3061. Discussion of this case can be found in 51 Pat. Trademark & Copyright J. (BNA) No. 1261 at 367 and 381 and the First Circuit's previous decision can be found at 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995). Information on this case, including the amicus curiae brief of the Minnesota Intellectual Property Association, which was written, in part, by the firm's own Steven Lundberg and Brad Forrest, as well as additional intellectual property law information is available from Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.'s Internet Web site.