Re: Pipe dreams

[William D Rich rich@xxxxxxxx]

At 06:41 PM 11/10/98 -0500, Robert Holmgren wrote:
>Wasn't the signal thing about the Lotus 1-2-3 suit that it held that
look-and-feel
>was indeed intellectual property? The implication being, that you don't
need to
>see the code to infringe on rights. Or am I misremembering the outcome?

The District Court held that the menu structure was copyrightable, but the
Court of Appeals (1st Circuit) reversed, holding that the menu structure
was uncopyrightable because it was a method of operation. Lotus
Development then appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, which deadlocked 4-4
(with Justice Stevens not participating), with the result that the Court of
Appeals' decision was affirmed but no Supreme Court precedent was created.
In other words, the rule in the 1st Circuit (Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island), as established by the Lotus v.
Borland litigation, is that menu structure is uncopyrightable, but that's
not necessarily the rule in other parts of the country.

Bill Rich