Lotus Development Corporation v. Borland International, Inc.
49 F.3d 807 (1995)
Rule of Law:
A computer program's menu command hierarchy is an uncopyrightable 'method of operation' under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it is the means by which users control and operate the program.
Facts:
- Lotus Development Corporation created the popular spreadsheet program Lotus 1-2-3.
- The program was operated by users through a menu command hierarchy consisting of 469 commands (e.g., 'Copy', 'Print') arranged into more than 50 menus and submenus.
- Users could create 'macros,' which were single keystrokes that executed a pre-programmed series of menu commands, allowing for automation of repetitive tasks.
- Borland International, Inc. developed a competing spreadsheet program, Quattro Pro.
- To attract Lotus 1-2-3 users, Borland copied the exact menu command hierarchy from Lotus 1-2-3 into its Quattro Pro program.
- Borland did not copy any of Lotus's underlying computer source code, only the words and structure of the menu command hierarchy.
- Borland offered the copied menu as a 'Lotus Emulation Interface,' which allowed users to operate Quattro Pro using the familiar Lotus commands and ensured that their existing Lotus macros would function in the new program.
Procedural Posture:
- Lotus Development Corp. sued Borland International, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging copyright infringement.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Lotus, holding that the Lotus 1-2-3 menu command hierarchy was copyrightable expression and that Borland's 'Lotus Emulation Interface' infringed that copyright.
- After Borland created a 'Key Reader' feature for macro compatibility, Lotus filed a supplemental complaint.
- Following two bench trials, the district court found Borland liable for infringement for both the original interface and the Key Reader and entered a permanent injunction against Borland.
- Borland, the defendant-appellant, appealed the district court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a computer software's menu command hierarchy a 'method of operation' under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) and therefore uncopyrightable subject matter?
Opinions:
Majority - Stahl, Circuit Judge
No. A computer software's menu command hierarchy is not copyrightable because it is an uncopyrightable 'method of operation' under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). The menu command hierarchy is the essential means by which users operate and control the program, analogous to the buttons on a VCR. Because these commands are essential to operating the program, they are part of a functional system and cannot be protected by copyright, regardless of any expressive choices made in their naming or arrangement. Protecting the menu would prevent users from applying their learned skills and self-created macros to competing software, which is contrary to the purpose of copyright law to promote progress by allowing others to build on existing methods. The court distinguished the menu hierarchy from the underlying code, which is protectable expression, because there are many ways to write code to perform a function, but to operate the program in the same way, one must use the specific menu hierarchy.
Concurring - Boudin, Circuit Judge
No. The menu command hierarchy is an uncopyrightable method of operation. Applying traditional copyright law to utilitarian works like computer programs is problematic, as it can have patent-like effects by limiting the public's ability to perform tasks efficiently. Granting a monopoly over a menu structure would unfairly lock in users who have invested their own time and effort in learning that system and creating macros for it, much like a monopoly on the QWERTY keyboard would trap typists. This would stifle competition and prevent users from migrating to superior products. While other legal doctrines like fair use could apply, classifying the menu as a 'method of operation' is the most direct and defensible basis for rightly concluding that it is not protectable by copyright.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrowed the scope of copyright protection for computer software by establishing that user interface elements essential to a program's operation are uncopyrightable. By classifying the menu hierarchy as a 'method of operation,' the court prioritized functionality, standardization, and interoperability over the author's expressive choices. This precedent allows competitors to create compatible programs, preventing market leaders from using copyright to 'lock in' a user base that has invested time in learning an interface. The ruling has had a lasting impact, ensuring that functional command structures remain in the public domain, fostering competition and innovation in software development.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Lotus Development Corporation v. Borland International, Inc. (1995)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"