In: Economics
On June 28, 1990, an important decision was rendered
with regard to a lawsuit between Lotus Development Corporation, the
creator of the Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet, and Paperback
International, the creator of the VP-Planner spreadsheet. Lotus had
sued Paperback International for infringement of its copyright on
Lotus 1-2-3. Paperback had copied the entire menu structure of the
Lotus 1-2-3 program. The manual of the VP-Planner even contained
the following statement: ‘’VP-Planner is designed to work like
Lotus, 1-2-3, keystroke for keystroke . . .. VP Planner’s worksheet
is a feature-for-feature work alike for the 1-2-3. It does micros.
It has the same command tree. It allows the same kind of
calculations, the same kind of numerical information. Everything
1-2-3 does, VP-Planner does.’’ Paperback, in turn, alleged that
only the part of a computer program written in some computer
language, such as C, is copyrightable. It argued that the more
graphic parts of a program, such as the overall organization of the
program, the structure of the program’s command system, the menu,
and the general presentation of information on the screen, are not
copyrightable. Lotus countered by arguing that copyright protection
extends to all elements of a computer program that embody original
expression.
Question: Could Lotus 1-2-3 be protected by a copyright and patent?
Why or why not? (10 points)
Yes, Lotus 1-2-3 can be protected by a copyright and patent because