America 1982-Chapter 211 - 75: Judgment_7
"Does the plaintiff have any more witnesses or evidence to present?" Jon Meyer shook his head.
"Does the defendant have any more witnesses or evidence to present?" Delia Case also shook her head.
The judge began, "This case will now proceed to final statements. Each attorney will have the following time to directly present their understanding of the legal principles pertaining to this case to the court and to deliver their final conclusions. The plaintiff."
Jon Meyer organized the documents in his hands, stood up, and spoke with a loud voice:
"Your Honor, computer software is a cohesive whole that deserves comprehensive patent protection. In this case, Actor Corporation’s development of the OSS software has plagiarized the Lotus Corporation’s software, Lotus 1-2-3, in aspects of its user interface and code to varying degrees. This is an extremely serious act of corporate theft. Both Patent Law and copyright law clearly delineate the protections for patents and copyrights. The defendant’s claim that the similarity in software does not constitute an important part of the whole is not a reason for the court to consider. We maintain that Lotus 1-2-3, as a complete whole, is entitled to full copyright protection. When rendering a decision, the court should presume the copyright to be complete rather than fragmented. Therefore, we request the court to conclude factual infringement by the defendant and to award Lotus Corporation compensation for a series of losses caused by the infringement."
Delia took the pre-prepared statement materials from the team’s lawyer:
"Your Honor, a characteristic of United State America copyright law is the idea-expression dichotomy. Copyright law protects original expressions, not ideas. When adjudicating related cases, the court should adopt the common abstraction-filtration-comparison test to determine what within the software is protected and what is not. However, to date, our legal system has not provided detailed laws or standards based on the emerging field of computer software to guide industry practitioners. The same goes for patents as they cannot encompass other matters and processes that extend from the same idea. We suggest that Lotus Corporation’s Lotus 1-2-3 is a unique original expression that deserves legal protection. However, OSS, developed based on the same idea, has not infringed. Merely having similar creative stages and functional similarities does not imply plagiarism. Moreover, the repeated claim of interface plagiarism by the plaintiff has no legal constraints. If a similar interface warrants declaring the entire software as plagiarized, then I consider it to be bullying by Lotus Corporation—a company with significant influence in the industry—against smaller companies like Actor. Our submitted evidence also shows that over twenty small studios have received legal warnings from Lotus for having some similar features in their developed software. Such behavior is not limited to Actor Corporation but targets any company with similar products. I believe that this approach to copyright protection is overly dangerous, for it implies that Lotus Corporation could monopolize the entire category of similar software and its related functions. Given the above arguments, I request the court to rule that Actor Corporation has not infringed and to hold Lotus Corporation responsible for the related losses caused by its series of targeting actions."
After the attorneys for both sides crisply delivered their final statements, the judge declared a recess, and the five justices stood and left the courtroom one after another.
Next, they would go to another conference room to discuss and vote, delivering the ultimate verdict.
Holly looked at Jason with some excitement, "We must win, right?"
"Of course, I even filmed a bloody porn movie, and now the whole world probably knows I’m a porn actor. The sacrifice has been so great that if we lose this lawsuit, I can’t think of any other way to console myself than by hanging Tommy," Jason said, staring at the empty bench, his voice trailing off.
Delia Case and the lawyers from Stanford Law School, despite appearing calm as they rested, chatted softly, and organized documents, could not entirely hide a certain excitement.
Although Tommy had previously made a big show of his influence, the ultimate decision rested in the hands of the nine Supreme Court justices. If a few of them suddenly got hot-headed, they might choose to be denounced and resign rather than stand up for Lotus Corporation’s rights...
After all, Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and can remain in their positions until they choose to resign, beyond the reach of the President. The public might force a legislator to resign with enough outcry, but it would be much harder to force a Supreme Court justice to step down.
The precendents were calling out to them. This case would define a series of legal issues for the computer software industry involving copyright and patent law, clarifying whether many subdivisions of computer software should be protected by copyright. When subsequent related legislation is drafted and similar cases arise, their documents and statements would be repeatedly referenced in court. And perhaps by tomorrow, countless computer software companies would be lining up to discuss collaboration, for if they won this case, they would become the legal authorities of the industry.
After nearly three hours of recess, the presiding justice, Hart Bronx, took his time settling back into the bench, a feather-light piece of paper in his hand. As he appeared, the courtroom fell silent in an instant, all eyes fixed on the judgment in his hands, the document that would decide the fate of both companies.
"The final majority opinion of this case was written by Justice David Souter, with all nine justices, including the Chief Justice, casting their votes. Six justices agree with the majority opinion, and three do not agree with the verdict given by the court," the judge said slowly.
