America 1982-Chapter 212 - 75: Judgment_8
Meanwhile, outside, there were also a few chaotic footsteps that suddenly burst and then gradually diminished, sounding like several people swiftly running away. This made everyone inside even more impatient, fearing that they would learn the outcome minutes later than the audience outside.
The Supreme Court had mandated that no devices capable of recording images or sound were allowed during trials. Once a decision was made, it was not only announced to both parties by the judge but also simultaneously communicated to the media. For landmark hearings like this one, all textual records from the start of the trial to the final decision were printed out without any omissions. These were handed to interns of the Supreme Court, who would sprint along the four-hundred-meter-long corridor to deliver them to the reporters of respective news media outside and inform the supporters of both sides about the final verdict without delay.
"The Supreme Court believes that the creativity of any basic element that constitutes a computer program does not fall under copyright, including the ideas that form the foundation of its interface..."
Before the first sentence was even finished, the room erupted in thunderous applause. Delia had already excitedly high-fived her team members to celebrate. Jon Meyer, Byron Kennedy, and others seemed to have anticipated this outcome and simply bowed their heads to start packing up the documents on the table.
Only Mitch Kapor and Jonathan Sachs sat staring blankly at the Chief Justice, who was still speaking slowly. They couldn’t believe what they were hearing. Hadn’t their software been plagiarized? And yet, there was no punishment?
"After reviewing the professional opinions of numerous friends of the court, the Supreme Court is convinced that if computer programs are protected solely under traditional copyright and patent law, this is tantamount to a monopoly of thought, which is not conducive to the technological advancement and industrial development of the software industry. We believe that the interface and menu command hierarchy of Lotus are methods of operation that are not protected by copyright. They are ways for users to control and operate the software, with users needing to use various functions to tell the computer their requirements. Therefore, the menu command hierarchy and interface should not be subject to traditional, generic copyright and patent protections."
"Given that the software industry places more emphasis on interoperability than other industries, adherence to traditional patent and copyright law would easily lead to an incompatible software ecosystem, greatly hindering the development of the United States’ software industry. At the same time, it may reveal more cases of copyright and patent abuses. Therefore, the Supreme Court has decided to discuss with Congress the idea of creating a more detailed act based on computer software within patent law and copyright law, using this case as a foundation to formulate more precise terms."
"I hereby announce that the claim of Lotus Corporation in its infringement lawsuit against Actor Corporation is dismissed. Actor Corporation has not engaged in commercially profitable infringement actions under the existing United States law, and the lawsuit initiated by the plaintiff based on Article 506 is invalid."
"As for Actor Corporation’s countersuit against Lotus Corporation for plagiarism, based on the testimony of the plaintiff’s witness Jim Manzi and the software development log provided by Actor Corporation, Lotus Corporation has not released software for public sale that contains code identical to that of Actor Corporation’s, nor has it impacted Actor Corporation. However, because Lotus Corporation did not disclose its software source code and subsequent development logs to the court for this case, henceforth, under Rule Fifty-One of the litigation rules, Lotus Corporation can choose to submit the source code and development logs to the court and a professional evaluation group that includes Actor Corporation within ninety days before the updated version goes to market. This is for the court and Actor Corporation to determine the absence of plagiarism reasons in order to retract the lawsuit, or they can apply for a motion to remain silent until the next formal business update of Lotus Corporation’s software. During this period, Actor Corporation themselves must gather the relevant investigative evidence to decide whether to use the function accused of plagiarism commercially. Lotus Corporation will not be affected by any judgment during this time."
"The Supreme Court believes that future software industry-related legislation and standards should allow software developers to create competitive products of copyrighted software without infringing on copyright. This is in the best interest of the industry’s development. The hearing is now concluded, court adjourned."
In the midst of the resounding applause, the Chief Justice stood up and left the bench. Following this, the representatives of various computer enterprises’ lawyers present in the gallery, along with one hundred and seventy-six nonprofit organization representatives, lawyers, Delia Case, Holly Kina, and Jason White all turned their gaze toward the Lotus Corporation people who were bowing their heads and preparing to gather their files to leave.
Their gazes were filled with undisguised greed.
At that moment, Lotus Corporation had reached its end.
With software updates governed by Moore’s law, at least one version update per year is needed to stay viable. Although Actor Corporation’s countersuit did not have a definitive outcome, Actor had firmly grasped Lotus’s vulnerabilities. Want to update? You’ll first need to hand over the source code to Actor so they can help you check it. Find one mistake, and you can forget about your software launching on schedule. And if Lotus dares to release it directly, giving Actor Corporation the chance to gather the relevant investigative evidence, then at that moment, all the friends of the court present in the gallery could become the victims of plagiarism, ready to continue the fray. In the meantime, other software competitors may take advantage of the market lost due to delayed updates. Even if Lotus could someday prove its innocence, it might only be struggling to survive, experiencing the isolation that comes with tightened standards and laws.
Benjamin Rosen, the executive director of EFF and the Chairman of Compaq, stood up and straightened his suit as he walked out. Just then, Seymour Rubinstein, the CEO of Micro-Innovation Company, also stood up. Upon seeing each other, Benjamin asked with a smile:
"Anything you want to say, Seymour? Want to sue Actor Corporation for plagiarism as well?"
"A new era of order is coming. It’s just that Lotus, who once had the opportunity to establish that order, has been left behind forever. I didn’t expect Lotus Corporation to be so foolish, to cast aside so much hidden power in the industry, digging its own grave," Rubinstein said with his beard, continuing to walk and talk:
"The Bible tells us, ’If one has a dispute with another, God will judge; but who can intercede when one offends Jehovah?’"
