On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 20:00, Jakob Bohm wrote: > However the main point of my post was not that. My main point > was that in Borland vs. Lotus, the issue placed before the court > was the right to *re-implement* a compatible interface, not the > right to implement things that *use* the interface.
Lotus v. Borland decided something broader than that: That the menu hierarchy (which Borland copied from Lotus 1-2-3 not just for macros, but to use in its own GUI) is a method of operation, and this not subject to copyright. The court makes it fairly clear that it considers human interfaces to computer programs as methods of operation.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
