Lotus Development Corp. v. Paperback Software International

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Paperback’s VP Planner was an infringing software product
• rejecting argument that the macro language is a non-copyrightable element of the program
• noting, with regard to a claimed oral employment contract, that “[t]he legitimacy of the representations and the reasonableness of the employee’s reliance are questions for the finder of fact that are not appropriate for summary judgment”
• defendant’s claim of prejudice rejected where its defense was that copyright infringement suit was frivolous
• three-part test designed to separate idea from expression and determine whether expression is substantial part of the work
• no showing that copying of entire interface is necessary for macro translation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).