8/20/2019 Lotus v Borland

1/2

COPYRIGHT  AND RELATED L AWS (SUMMER 2015-2016) ATTY. ORTIGUERRA

LOTUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. BORLAND

INTERNATIONAL, INC.

49 F.3d 807

Date: March 9, 1995Ponente: Circuit Judge Stahl

RECIT READY:

Lotus sued Borland, alleging copyright infringement of themenu commands of its spreadsheet program Lotus 1-2-3. Thedistrict court found that plainti!s computer menu commandhierarchy "as a copyrighta#le e$pression. %n appeal,Borland contends that Lotus! menu command hierarchy "asuncopyrighta#le su#&ect matter. The court held that themenu "as not copyrighta#le #ecause it "as a method of 

operation and, therefore, "as foreclosed from copyrightprotection #y 1' (.S.C.S. ) 1*+#-.

FACTS:

BacgroundLotus 1/+/0 is a spreadsheet program that ena#les users toperform accounting functions electronically on a computer.(sers manipulate and control the program ia a series of menu commands, such as 2Copy,2 23rint,2 and 24uit.2 Lotus1/+/0, lie many computer programs, allo"s users to "rite"hat are called 2macros.2

Borland released its rst 4uattro program. Borland!so#&ectie "as to deelop a spreadsheet program far superiorto e$isting programs, including Lotus 1/+/0. Borland includedin its 4uattro and 4uattro 3ro ersion 1.* programs 2airtually identical copy of the entire 1/+/0 menu tree.2 6n sodoing, Borland did not copy any of Lotus!s underlyingcomputer code7 it copied only the "ords and structure of Lotus!s menu command hierarchy. Borland included the Lotusmenu

command hierarchy in its programs to mae themcompati#le "ith Lotus 1/+/0 so that spreadsheet users "ho"ere already familiar "ith Lotus 1/+/0 "ould #e a#le tos"itch to the Borland programs "ithout haing to learn ne"commands or re"rite their Lotus macros.

6n its 4uattro and 4uattro 3ro ersion 1.* programs, Borlandachieed compati#ility "ith Lotus 1/+/0 #y oering its usersan alternate user interface, the 2Lotus 8mulation 6nterface.26n eect, Borland allo"ed users to choose ho" they "antedto communicate "ith Borland!s spreadsheet programs either#y using menu commands designed #y Borland, or #y usingthe commands and command structure used in Lotus 1/+/0augmented #y Borland/added commands.

%n appeal, Borland does not dispute that it factually copiedthe "ords and arrangement of the Lotus menu command

hierarchy. :ather, Borland argues that it 2la"fully copied theunprotecta#le menus of Lotus 1/+/0.2 Borland contends thatthe Lotus menu command hierarchy is not copyrighta#le#ecause it is a system, method of operation, process, orprocedure foreclosed from protection #y 1' (.S.C. ) 1*+#-.

ISSUE:

;hether a computer menu command hierarchy iscopyrighta#le su#&ect matter.

HELD:

8/20/2019 Lotus v Borland

2/2

COPYRIGHT  AND RELATED L AWS (SUMMER 2015-2016) ATTY. ORTIGUERRA

this, he or she may either present direct eidence of factualcopying or, if that is unaaila#le, eidence that the allegedinfringer had access to the copyrighted "or and that theoending and copyrighted "ors are so similar that the courtmay infer that there "as factual copying i.e., pro#atiesimilarity-.

 The instant case concerns itself only "ith "hether the Lotusmenu command hierarchy is copyrighta#le su#&ect matter inthe rst instance, for Borland concedes that Lotus has a alidcopyright in Lotus 1/+/0 as a "hole and admits to factuallycopying the Lotus menu command hierarchy.

Borland argues that the Lotus menu command hierarchy isuncopyrighta#le #ecause it is a system, method of operation,process, or procedure foreclosed from copyright protection #y1' (.S.C. ) 1*+#-, "hich states

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system,method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery,regardless of the form in which it is descried, explained,illustrated, or emodied in such work!"

2Method of operation,2 as that term is used in ) 1*+#-, refersto the means #y "hich a person operates something,"hether it #e a car, a food processor, or a computer. Thus ate$t descri#ing ho" to operate something "ould not e$tend

copyright protection to the method of operation itself7 otherpeople "ould #e free to employ that method and to descri#eit in their o"n "ords.

 The Lotus menu command hierarchy is an uncopyrighta#le2method of operation.2 The Lotus menu command hierarchy

proides the means #y "hich users control and operate Lotus1/+/0. 6f users "ish to copy material, for e$ample, they usethe 2Copy2 command. 6f users "ish to print material, they usethe 23rint2 command. (sers must use the command terms totell the computer "hat to do. ;ithout the menu commandhierarchy, users "ould not #e a#le to access and control, or

indeed mae use of, Lotus 1/+/0!s functional capa#ilities.

 The Lotus menu command hierarchy does not merely e$plainand present Lotus 1/+/0!s functional capa#ilities to the user7it also seres as the method #y "hich the program isoperated and controlled. The Lotus menu command hierarchyis dierent from the Lotus long prompts, for the long promptsare not necessary to the operation of the program7 userscould operate Lotus 1/+/0 een if there "ere no longprompts.

 The Lotus menu command hierarchy is also dierent from theLotus screen displays, for users need not 2use2 anye$pressie aspects of the screen displays in order to operateLotus 1/+/07 #ecause the "ay the screens loo has little#earing on ho" users control the program, the screendisplays are not part of Lotus 1/+/0!s 2method of operation.2

 The Lotus menu command hierarchy is also dierent from theunderlying computer code, #ecause "hile code is necessaryfor the program to "or, its precise formulation is not. 6nother "ords, to oer the same capa#ilities as Lotus 1/+/0,

Borland did not hae to copy Lotus!s underlying code andindeed it did not-7 to allo" users to operate its programs insu#stantially the same "ay, ho"eer, Borland had to copythe Lotus menu command hierarchy. Thus the Lotus 1/+/0code is not a uncopyrighta#le 2method of operation.2

 Ayso !"#$o"$o C%&' E#"o G"" Go'"#s L*+o Mo'o No R",+%' T",o$o T" To%*&"o%