Lotus Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Question Presented Whether a computer program's particular menu command hierarchy, which the district court found to contain expression separable from its underlying idea and the functionality it describes, may be protected by copyright in light of the explicit Congressional extension of copyright to computer programs under the same principles applicable to other literary works; or whether, as the First Circuit held, Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act bars protection for any such menu command hierarchy despite its expressive characteristics, because it assists users in communicating with a computer program in order to perform useful operations. Rule 29.1 statement Petitioner Lotus Development Corporation has no parent corporation and no subsidiaries that are not wholly owned, except for certain foreign subsidiaries in which a minimal amount of shares (fewer than 1%), which are not publicly traded, are held by foreign nationals in accordance with local law. Table of Contents Question Presented i Rule 29.1 Statement ii Table of Authorities iv Opinions Below 1 Jurisdiction 1 Constitutional and Statutory Provisions involved 1 Statement of the Case 1 • A. Factual Background 2 • B. Legal Background 7 • C. Prior Proceedings in This Case 17 o 1. In the District Court 17 o 2. In the Court of Appeals 19 Reasons for Granting the Petition 21 I. THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS CONFLICTS WITH DECISIONS OF NO FEWER THAN FIVE OTHER CIRCUITS 23II. THE QUESTION OF FEDERAL LAW DECIDED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS UNSETTLES THE LAW IN AN IMPORTANT AREA AND THEREFORE THE PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRES THIS COURT'S REVIEW 26 Conclusion 30 Table of Authorities Cases Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Int'l Inc., 725 F.2d 521 (9th Cir. 1984) 13n Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983), cert. dismissed, 464 U.S. 1033 (1984) 12-13, 26, 29 Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, U.S. , 115 S. Ct. 1176 (1995) 25 Atari Games Corp. v. Oman, 888 F.2d 878 (D.C. Cir. 1989) 13 Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp., 672 F.2d 607 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 (1982) 13 Autoskill, Inc. v. National Educational Support Systems, Inc., 994 F.2d 1476 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, U.S. , 114 S. Ct. 307(1993) 14n, 24, 24n Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879) 9, 10, 20 Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. BB Asset Mgmt. Inc. v. Symantec Corp., U.S. , 113 S. Ct. 198 (1992) 25 Computer Assoc. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992) 10, 14n, 15-16, 20n, 25, 26 Engineering Dynamics, Inc. v. Structural Software, Inc., 26 F.3d 1335 (5th Cir.1994) 14n, 16-17, 22, 23-24 Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Serv. Co., 449 U.S. 340 (1991) 8-9 Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chemical Indus., Ltd., 9 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 1993) 14n, 16, 24n Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) 21 Hartfield v. Peterson, 91 F.2d 998 (2d Cir. 1937) 12nJohnson Controls, Inc. v. Phoenix Control Systems, Inc., 886 F.2d 1173 (9th Cir. 1989) 14n, 25 Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. v. Leadership Software, Inc., 12 F.3d 527 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, U.S. , 115 S. Ct. 82 (1994) 14n Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954) 12, 12n, 18, 20n, 21, 30 Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble Co., 379 F.2d 675 (1st Cir. 1967) 10 Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930), cert. denied, 282 U.S. 902 (1931) 10, 15, 25 Orgel v. Clark Boardman Co., 301 F.2d 119 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 817 (1962) 12n Lotus Development Corp. v. Paperback Software Int'l, 740 F. Supp. 37 (D. Mass. 1990) passim Peter Pan Fabrics v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487 (2d Cir. 1960) 28n Reiss v. National Quotation Bureau, 276 F. 717 (S.D.N.Y. 1921) 12n Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) 21 Whelan Assoc., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc., 797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1031 (1987) 13-14, 16, 26 Constitutional Provision, Statutes and Public Laws United States Constitution, art. I, 8, cl. 8 1, 7 17 U.S.C. 101 1, 3, 8, 18n, 27 102(a) passim 102(b) passim 103 1, 14 117 1, 27n 28 U.S.C. 1254 1 Act of May 31, 1790, ch. 15, 1, 1 Stat. 124 (repealed 1831) 7Pub. L. No. 93-573, 201(b)-(c), 88 Stat. 1873 (1974) 11n Pub. L. No. 96-517, 12, 94 Stat. 3015 (1980) (codified at 17 U.S.C. 101, 117) 11n Legislative Materials H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1976 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 5659 8, 11, 12, 27 H.R. Rep. No. 1307, 96th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1980 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 6460 11n Other Authorities Final Report of the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (1978) 11, 12, 21 David Nimmer & Melville B. Nimmer, 3 Nimmer on Copyright, 13.03[F][1] 16 Lotus Development Corporation ("Lotus") respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in this case. Opinions Below The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 1a-28a) is reported at 49 F.3d 807. The opinions of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Robert E. Keeton, J.) are reported at 788 F. Supp. 78 (Pet. App. 145a-182a); 799 F. Supp. 203 (Pet. App. 106a-144a); 831 F. Supp. 202 (Pet. App. 71a-105a); and 831 F. Supp. 223 (Pet. App. 29a-70a). The opinion of the district court in the related case of Lotus Development Corp. v. Paperback Software International is reported at 740 F. Supp. 37 (Pet. App. 183a-269a). Jurisdiction The Court of Appeals entered judgment on March 9, 1995. Pet. App. 1a. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254. Constitutional and Statutory Provisions involved United States Constitution, art. I, 8, cl. 8 The Congress shall have Power . . . [t]o promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors . . . the exclusive Right to their . . . Writings. . . . 17 U.S.C. 101, 17 U.S.C. 102, 17 U.S.C. 103, 17 U.S.C. 117. (The full text of the statutory provisions involved is set forth in the accompanying Appendix (Pet. App. at 270a-280a).)Statement of the case This case presents issues of fundamental importance concerning the scope of copyright protection for computer software and the application of Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 102(b), to this type of literary work. In a