Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Paperback Software Intern., Civ. A. No. 87-76-K.
| Decision Date | 28 June 1990 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 87-76-K. |
| Citation | 740 F. Supp. 37 |
| Parties | LOTUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. PAPERBACK SOFTWARE INTERNATIONAL and Stephenson Software, Limited, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Henry B. Gutman, Kerry L. Konrad, John S. Beckerman, Karen F. Conway, O'Sullivan Graev & Karabell, New York City, and Thomas J. Dougherty, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Boston, Mass., for Lotus Development Corp.
Lawrence G. Papale, Cannata, Genovese & Papale, San Francisco, Cal., and Edward C. Saltzberg, Warner & Stackpole, Boston, Mass., for Stephenson Software, Ltd.
Paul R. Gupta, David A. Guberman, Barbara O'Donnell, Brian C. Levey, Nereyda F. Garcia, Kenneth R. Berman, Sherin and Lodgen, Boston, Mass., and Walter G. Murphy, Peter C. Kober, Murphy, DeMarco & O'Neill, P.C., Boston, Mass., for Paperback Software Intern.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. A Background Statement About Computers, Computer Programs, and
Copyrightability ........................................................... 42
II. Constitutional Constraints .................................................. 46
III. Congressional Mandates and Judicial Interpretation ......................... 46
A. Sources of Guidance ..................................................... 46
1. Precedent on Determining Statutory Meaning ........................... 46
2. The Statutory Language and the History of Amendments ................. 47
a. Pre-1976 Legislation .............................................. 47
b. The Copyright Act of 1976 ......................................... 47
c. CONTU and the 1980 Amendments ..................................... 49
3. Relevant Aspects of the Whole Law of Copyright ....................... 51
a. "Nonliteral" Expression ........................................... 51
b. "Useful Articles" ................................................. 52
4. The Objects and Policies of Copyright Law ............................ 52
B. The Idea-Expression and Useful-Expressive Distinctions .................. 53
IV. The Legal Test for Copyrightability Applicable to This Case ................. 54
A. Functionality, Useful Articles, and the Useful-Expressive Distinction ... 54
B. The Idea-Expression Riddle: Four Additional Concepts .................... 58
C. Elements of the Legal Test for Copyrightability ......................... 59
D. Incentives and the Role of Advocacy ..................................... 62
V. Application of the Legal Test to Lotus 1-2-3 ................................. 62
A. "Look and Feel" ......................................................... 62
B. The User Interface ...................................................... 63
C. Elements of the User Interface as Expression ............................ 65
VI. Copying of Lotus 1-2-3 ...................................................... 68
VII. A Postscript on the Nature of Decisionmaking in This Case .................. 71
A. Policy Arguments and Limitations on the Role of Courts .................. 71
B. Strained Analogies and Word Games ....................................... 71
C. Policy Arguments for Bright-Line Rules .................................. 73
D. Opinion Evidence and Premises of Legal Rulings .......................... 73
E. Defendants' Policy Arguments Founded On the OTSOG Principle ............. 77
VIII. Other Defenses ............................................................ 79
A. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction ..................................... 79
B. Laches and Equitable Estoppel ........................................... 82
IX. Reserved Rulings on Objections .............................................. 83
ORDER ........................................................................... 84
Appendices ................................................................... 85-87
The expression of an idea is copyrightable. The idea itself is not. When applying these two settled rules of law, how can a decisionmaker distinguish between an idea and its expression?
Answering this riddle is the first step — but only the first — toward disposition of this case in which the court must decide, among other issues, (1) whether and to what extent plaintiff's computer spreadsheet program, Lotus 1-2-3, is copyrightable, (2) whether defendants' VP-Planner was, on undisputable facts, an infringing work containing elements substantially similar to copyrightable elements of 1-2-3, and (3) whether defendants' proffered jurisdictional and equitable defenses are meritorious.
Stipulation and Order Regulating Phased Trial, § I(A) (Docket No. 246).1
This Opinion sets forth findings of fact and conclusions of law that are central to deciding this controversy. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). The court adopts, as additional findings, all proposed findings to which no party objected. See Docket Nos. 250, 251.
The outcome of this case depends on how this court, and higher courts on appeal, should answer a central question about the scope of copyrightability of computer programs. For the reasons explained in this Opinion, I conclude that this question must be resolved in favor of the plaintiff, Lotus.
Though their influence in our society is already pervasive, digital computers — along with computer "programs" and "user interfaces" — are relatively new to the market, and newer still to litigation over "works" protected by intellectual property law.
Digital computers (hereinafter referred to as "computers") are machines currently used to perform three types of functions electronically: (1) arithmetic calculations; (2) logical operations (e.g., comparing values to determine whether one is larger); and (3) storage and display of the results. Because computers can perform millions of operations of these types in a single second, they can be used to solve problems too complex, or too repetitious and boring, to be solved manually. Developments to the current state of the art have already transformed many areas of business, educational, and recreational activity, and they support speculations about more striking achievements in the future.
A personal computer system consists of hardware and software. The hardware includes the central processing unit ("CPU"), which contains the electronic circuits that control the computer and perform the arithmetic and logical functions, the internal memory of the computer ("random access memory," or "RAM"), input devices such as a keyboard and mouse, output devices such as a display screen and printer, and storage devices such as hard and floppy disk drives. The software includes one or more computer programs, usually stored magnetically on hard or floppy disks, along with such items as instruction manuals and "templates," which are pieces of plastic that fit around the function keys on the keyboard, identifying the specific functions or commands that can be invoked by those keys. A personal computer system can also include "firmware," or "microcode":
Microcode is a set of encoded instructions ... that controls the fine details of the execution of one or more primitive functions of a computer. Microcode serves as a substitute for certain elements of the hardware circuitry that had previously controlled that function.
Samuelson, CONTU Revisited: The Case Against Copyright Protection for Computer Programs in Machine-Readable Form, 1984 Duke L.J. 663, 677.
Computer programs are, in general, divided into two types: operating system programs and application programs. Operating system programs — such as DOS, XENIX, and OS/2 — are programs that control the basic functions of the computer hardware, such as the efficient utilization of memory and the starting and stopping of application programs. Application programs are programs that permit a user to perform some particular task such as word processing, database management, or spreadsheet calculations, or that permit a user to play video games.
This case concerns two competing application programs — Lotus 1-2-3 and VP-Planner — which are primarily spreadsheet programs, but which also support other tasks such as limited database management and graphics creation. Programs such as these, because they can perform several different kinds of tasks, are called "integrated" application programs.
Congress has defined "computer program" as follows:
A "computer program" is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.
17 U.S.C. § 101 (1988). This "set of statements or instructions," in its literal or written manifestation, may be in the form of object code or source code. It may also be represented, in a partially literal manifestation, by a flowchart. A copyrightable work designed for use on a computer may include, as well, text that appears, for example, in a problem...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd.
...also Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 701-14 (2d Cir.1992); Lotus Development Corp. v. Paperback Software International, 740 F.Supp. 37 (D.Mass.1990). First, in order to provide a framework for analysis, we conclude that a court should dissecLearned Hand......
-
Computer Associates Intern., Inc. v. Altai, Inc.
...programs are protected by copyright law. The statutory terrain in this area has been well explored. See Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Paperback Software Int'l, 740 F.Supp. 37, 47-51 (D.Mass.1990); see also Whelan, 797 F.2d at 1240-42; Englund, at 885-90; Spivack, at 731-37. The Copyright Act affords ......
-
Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc.
...to the computer.2 For a thorough historical presentation of Congress's copyright enactments, see Lotus Development v. Paperback Software International, 740 F.Supp. 37, 47-51 (D.Mass.1990).3 In 1991, the Copyright Office circulated the following notice:The Copyright Office has recently becom......
-
A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Const. Co.
...180 USPQ 548, 553 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 930, 95 S.Ct. 203, 42 L.Ed.2d 161 (1974); Lotus Dev. v. Paperback Software Int'l, 740 F.Supp. 37, 15 USPQ2d 1577, 1611 (D.Mass.1990); Simmons Co. v. Baker, 200 F.Supp. 149, 154, 131 USPQ 312, 315-16 (D.Mass.1961), aff'd, 307 F.2d 458 (1s......
-
COPYRIGHT AND THE CREATIVE PROCESS.
...Bus. Sols., LLC, No. 05 Civ. 6738, 2009 WL 790048, at *17-18 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2009); Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Paperback Software Int'l, 740 F. Supp. 37, 56 (D. Mass. (123) See Olem Shoe Corp. v. Wash. Shoe Co., No. 09-23494-CIV, 2011 WL 6202282, at *11-12 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2011), aff'd, 591 F......
-
Intellectual property crimes.
...protected and unprotected components for purposes of evaluating substantial similarity); Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Paperback Software Int'l, 740 F. Supp. 37, 67 (D. Mass. 1990) (stating only copyrightable components should be analyzed). But see Atari Games Corp. v. Oman, 888 F.2d 878, 882-83 (D.C......
-
Intellectual property crimes.
...protected and unprotected components for purposes of evaluating substantial similarity); Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Paperback Software Int'l, 740 F. Supp. 37, 67 (D. Mass. 1990) (stating only copyrightable components should be analyzed). But see Atari Games Corp. v. Oman, 888 F.2d 878, 882-83 (D.C......
-
Intellectual property crimes.
...protected and unprotected components for purposes of evaluating substantial similarity); Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Paperback Software Int'l, 740 F. Supp. 37, 67 (D. Mass. 1990) (stating only copyrightable components should be analyzed). But see Atari Games Corp. v. Oman, 888 F.2d 878, 882-83 (D.C......