Anatomy of a Copyright Case | bsobel | September 17, 2014

H2O

This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.

Anatomy of a Copyright Case

by bsobel Show/Hide
Faculty: Henry B. Gutman This term we will explore the copyright treatment of computer software by examining together the litigation to protect the user interface of the spreadsheet program Lotus 1-2-3, the most popular application program of its time. We will begin with some background on the law, then proceed to consider the litigation Lotus filed against Paperback Software with respect to the first, self-proclaimed 1-2-3 clone and then address in detail the Lotus v. Borland case, which ended in a 4-4 tie in the Supreme Court. In addition to discussing the relevant legal and policy issues, we will focus on the nuts and bolts litigation questions that arose in the course of multiple trials, two arguments in the First Circuit and a closely watched Supreme Court case that failed to produce a decision. In our final class, we will fast forward to the present to consider the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Oracle v. Google (for which a certiorari petition is now pending) addressing similar copyright questions, thirty years after the complaint in Lotus v. Paperback was filed. Time permitting we will also look briefly at how patent protection for computer software has evolved over the same period. Our class will meet on the following six dates, in Hauser 102 (unless otherwise noted): Wednesday, February 4th, 5-7pm. Wednesday, February 25, 5-7pm. FRIDAY, March 6, 3-5pm (during designated HLS make-up class period) (WCC 3018). Wednesday, March 11, 5-7pm. Wednesday, March 25, 5-7pm. Wednesday, April 8, 5-7pm. EDIT PLAYLIST INFORMATION DELETE PLAYLIST

Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:

MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (6/6 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (0/6 playlist item notes are private)
  1. 1 Show/Hide More Week 1
    Original Creator: bsobel
    1. 1.1 Show/Hide More Whelan Associates, Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc.
      Original Creator: bsobel
    2. 1.2 Show/Hide More Diamond v. Diehr
      Original Creator: bsobel
    3. 1.3 Show/Hide More Baker v. Selden
      Original Creator: bsobel
    4. 1.4 Show/Hide More Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
      Original Creator: bsobel
    5. 1.5 Show/Hide More Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.
      Original Creator: bsobel
    6. 1.6 Show/Hide More Refac International, Ltd. v. Lotus Development Corp.
      Original Creator: bsobel
    7. 1.7 Show/Hide More Atari Games Corp. v. Oman
      Original Creator: bsobel
    8. 1.8 Final Report of the Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (1978)
    9. 1.9 Show/Hide More Copyright Act: 17 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions
      Original Creator: bsobel
      Via http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101
    10. 1.10 Show/Hide More Copyright Act: 17 U.S. Code § 102 - Subject matter of copyright: In general
      Original Creator: bsobel
    11. 1.11 Show/Hide More Copyright Act: 17 U.S. Code § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
      Original Creator: bsobel
    12. 1.12 Show/Hide More Copyright Act: 17 U.S. Code § 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
      Original Creator: bsobel
    13. 1.13 Week 1 Background News Articles (HUID/PIN protected)
    14. 1.14 Show/Hide More Week 1 Supplemental Materials
      Original Creator: bsobel
      1. 1.14.1 Selden's Ledger
      2. 1.14.2 Baker v. Selden Supreme Court Record
  2. 2 Show/Hide More Week 2
    Original Creator: bsobel
    1. 2.1 Show/Hide More Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc.,
      Original Creator: bsobel
    2. 2.2 Show/Hide More Lotus Development Corp. v. Paperback Software International
      Original Creator: bsobel
    3. 2.3 Show/Hide More Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd.
      Original Creator: bsobel
    4. 2.4 Lotus v. Borland Complaint
    5. 2.5 Lotus v. Borland Answer
    6. 2.6 Show/Hide More Week 2 Supplemental Materials
      Original Creator: bsobel
      1. 2.6.1 Show/Hide More Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation
        Original Creator: bsobel
  3. 3 Show/Hide More Week 3
    Original Creator: bsobel
    1. 3.1 Show/Hide More Affidavits and Declarations (Week 3)
      Original Creator: bsobel
      1. 3.1.1 Affidavit of Jonathan Sachs
      2. 3.1.2 Declaration of James Emery
      3. 3.1.3 Affidavit of Mitchell Kapor
      4. 3.1.4 Declaration of Judith Olson
      5. 3.1.5 Declaration of David Liddle
      6. 3.1.6 Deposition of Jonathan Sachs
      7. 3.1.7 Deposition of Adam Bosworth
      8. 3.1.8 Second Deposition of Adam Bosworth
      9. 3.1.9 Deposition of David Liddle
      10. 3.1.10 First Declaration of Bernard Galler
      11. 3.1.11 Second Declaration of Bernard Galler
      12. 3.1.12 Deposition of Philippe Kahn
      13. 3.1.13 First Declaration of Eugene Buechele
      14. 3.1.14 Second Declaration of Eugene Buechele
      15. 3.1.15 Deposition of Ezra Gottheil Sept 22 1992
    2. 3.2 Show/Hide More Motions for Summary Judgment
      Original Creator: bsobel
      1. 3.2.1 Plantiff's Renewed MSJ on Infringement
      2. 3.2.2 Plaintiff's Memo in Support of MSJ on Infringement
      3. 3.2.3 Borland's Response to Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment
      4. 3.2.4 Borland's Memo in Support of Renewed MSJ
      5. 3.2.5 Lotus's Response to Plaintiff's Renewed MSJ
      6. 3.2.6 Statement of Material Facts as to which there is no Genuine Issue Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 and in Support of Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment
      7. 3.2.7 Show/Hide More Week 3 Supplemental MSJ Materials
        Original Creator: bsobel
        1. 3.2.7.1 Borland's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Copyrightability
        2. 3.2.7.2 Borland's Reply Memo in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
        3. 3.2.7.3 Borland's Statement of Material Facts Going to Copyrightability as to which there is no genuine issue
        4. 3.2.7.4 Borland's Statement of Material Facts as to which there is a genuine issue to be tried
        5. 3.2.7.5 Borland's memo in support of cross-motion for summary judgment
        6. 3.2.7.6 Exhibits in support of Borland's cross-motion for SJ
        7. 3.2.7.7 Lotus's response to Borland's statement of material facts going to copyrightability as to which there is no genuine issue
        8. 3.2.7.8 Plaintiff's memorandum of law in support of motion for summary judgment on liability
        9. 3.2.7.9 Plaintiff's motion for leave to file memorandum in excess of twenty pages
        10. 3.2.7.10 Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability
        11. 3.2.7.11 Plaintiff's reply memorandum in support of motion for summary judgment and in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment on the issue of copyrightability
        12. 3.2.7.12 Plaintiff's reply memorandum in support of MSJ and in opposition to defendant's cross-motion for SJ
        13. 3.2.7.13 Statement of material facts as to which there is no genuine issue pursuant to local rule 56.1
    3. 3.3 Show/Hide More Lotus v. Borland District Court Summary Judgment Decisions
      HUID/PIN protected
  4. 4 Show/Hide More Week 4
    Original Creator: bsobel
    1. 4.1 First Circuit Brief of Plaintiff/Appellee Lotus
    2. 4.2 First Circuit Brief of Defendant/Appellant Borland
    3. 4.3 First Circuit Reply Brief of Defendant/Appellant Borland International, Inc.
    4. 4.4 Show/Hide More Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. 831 F.Supp. 202 (D. Mass 1993)
      Original Creator: bsobel
    5. 4.5 Show/Hide More Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc. 831 F.Supp. 223 (D. Mass. 1993)
      Original Creator: bsobel
    6. 4.6 Show/Hide More Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc. (First Circuit)
      Original Creator: bsobel
    7. 4.7 Show/Hide More Week 4 Supplemental Materials
      Original Creator: bsobel
      1. 4.7.1 District Court Amicus Curiae Brief of Copyright Law Professors
      2. 4.7.2 Show/Hide More Lotus v. Borland First Circuit Oral Argument, October 6th 1994
        Direct file URL can be found below
  5. 5 Show/Hide More Week 5
    Original Creator: bsobel
    1. 5.1 Annotated Supreme Court Transcript of Lotus v. Borland
    2. 5.2 Show/Hide More Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
      Original Creator: bsobel
    3. 5.3 Oral Argument Notes of Henry B. Gutman
    4. 5.4 Lotus Petition for Certiorari
    5. 5.5 Borland's Brief of Respondent (HUID/PIN Protected)
    6. 5.6 Lotus's Petitioner Brief
    7. 5.7 Lotus's Reply Brief
    8. 5.8 Show/Hide More Supreme Court Amicus Briefs
      Original Creator: bsobel
      1. 5.8.1 Computer Scientists
      2. 5.8.2 Copyright Law Professors
      3. 5.8.3 American Committee for Interoperable Systems
      4. 5.8.4 Digital Equipment Corporation
      5. 5.8.5 American Intellectual Property Law Association
    9. 5.9 Lotus vs. Borland SCOTUS Oral Argument
    10. 5.10 Lotus v. Borland on NPR, Jan. 8, 1996 (HUID/PIN Protected)
    11. 5.11 Show/Hide More Government Brief to SCOTUS
      Original Creator: bsobel
      1. 5.11.1 27nov1995_hyman_quinn.pdf
      2. 5.11.2 30nov1995_ogden_kagan.pdf
      3. 5.11.3 1dec1995_ogden_call_notes.pdf
      4. 5.11.4 1dec1995_memo.pdf
      5. 5.11.5 1dec1995_draftbrief.pdf
      6. 5.11.6 5dec1995_kaganmemo.pdf
      7. 5.11.7 5dec1995_kagan_wallman.pdf
      8. 5.11.8 5dec1995_draftbrief.pdf
      9. 5.11.9 5dec1995_goffney_quinn.pdf
      10. 5.11.10 5dec1995_brinkmann.pdf
      11. 5.11.11 6dec1995.pdf
  6. 6 Show/Hide More Week 6
    Original Creator: bsobel

    1. 6.1 Show/Hide More Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. (District)
      Original Creator: bsobel

    2. 6.2 OPENING BRIEF AND ADDENDUM OF PLAINTIFF - APPELLANT
    3. 6.3 BRIEF OF APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT GOOGLE INC.
    4. 6.4 RESPONSE AND REPLY BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF - APPELLANT
    5. 6.5 REPLY BRIEF OF CROSS-APPELLANT GOOGLE INC.
    6. 6.6 Show/Hide More Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. (Appeals)
      Original Creator: bsobel

    7. 6.7 Oracle v. Google Petition for Certiorari
    8. 6.8 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE COMPUTER SCIENTISTS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER (Oracle v. Google)
    9. 6.9 Show/Hide More Oracle v. Google Amicus Briefs to Federal Circuit
      Original Creator: bsobel
      1. 6.9.1 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE EUGENE H. SPAFFORD, Ph.D., ZHI DING, Ph.D., AND LEE A. HOLLAAR, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT
      2. 6.9.2 CORRECTED BRIEF OF SCOTT MCNEALY AND B RIAN SUTPHIN AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL
      3. 6.9.3 CORRECTED BRIEF FOR BSA | THE SOFTWARE ALLIANCE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF - APPELLANT ORACLE AMERICA, INC
      4. 6.9.4 Microsoft Brief in Support of Appellant
      5. 6.9.5 BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE RALPH OMAN SUPPORTING THE POSITION OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AND URGING REVERSAL
      6. 6.9.6 PICTURE ARCHIVE COUNCIL OF AMERICA
Close

Playlist Information

June 23, 2017

Author Stats

bsobel

Other Playlists by bsobel

Find Items

Search below to find items, then drag and drop items onto playlists you own. To add items to nested playlists, you must first expand those playlists.

SEARCH
Leitura Garamond Futura Verdana Proxima Nova Dagny Web
small medium large extra-large