Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc.
1996 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 516 U.S. 233 (1996), is a United States Supreme Court case that tested the extent of software copyright.[1] 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 split evenly, leaving the lower court's decision affirmed but setting no national precedent.
Quick Facts Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., Argued January 8, 1996 Decided January 16, 1996 ...
Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, 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 |
Case history | |
Prior | 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. |
Holding | |
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is affirmed by an equally divided Court. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Per curiam | |
Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
17 U.S.C. section 102(b) |
Close