Copyright Suit Fights Lotus 1-2-3

By Peter H. Lewis
The New York Times

April 9, 1987

The Lotus Development Corporation, which has sued rival computer software companies that it said had copied the ''look and feel'' of its successful 1-2-3 spreadsheet program, was itself sued yesterday on the same ground.

The $100 million copyright infringement suit, filed by SAPC Inc., is the latest, and most ironic, development in a dispute that has divided the multibillion-dollar software industry. The central issue in these suits is whether a competing program, using a different software code, can mimic the commands, functions and screen appearance of an existing program.

The program that Lotus is accused of copying, Visicalc, was developed by the Software Arts Products Corporation. It is widely regarded as the first innovative personal computer program, one that more than any other software product fueled the phenomenal growth of the young PC industry.

Software Arts sold Visicalc and other assets to Lotus last year and changed its name to SAPC Inc.

'Significant Implications'

If successful, the suit filed yesterday could have ''significant implications for the industry,'' said Bill Hicks, director of software research for Infocorp, a computer industry research group in Cupertino, Calif.

Critics of such suits say they will hurt the software industry by discouraging programmers from trying to improve on existing products. On the other hand, Lotus has argued in support of its own lawsuits that innovation is fostered when developers must design new programs instead of building on existing ones.

A Federal district judge in Atlanta ruled last week in favor of a communications software company that had sued a rival for copying the ''look and feel'' of its program.

The judge held that the Softklone Distributing Corporation of Tallahassee, Fla., had infringed on the copyright of Digital Communications Associates Inc. of Alpharetta, Ga., maker of the popular data communications software program ''Crosstalk.'' The judge based his decision on the similar appearances of the main menu screens of the programs, not on the actual computer code, which differed.

The SAPC suit, filed in Federal District Court in Boston, seeks damages from both Lotus, based in Cambridge, Mass., and its founder, Mitchell D. Kapor.

Mr. Kapor resigned as chairman of Lotus last July to ''explore other endeavors.'' He could not be reached for comment. A Lotus spokesman said yesterday that the SAPC lawsuit was ''entirely without merit.'' Lotus has 30 days to respond to the suit.

SAPC contends that Mr. Kapor ''misappropriated'' copyrighted and confidential aspects of the Visicalc program while he was an employee of the exclusive marketing agent for Visicalc and later as a product tester for an advanced version of Visicalc.

The 'Look and Feel' Argument

The suit contends that Lotus 1-2-3 ''wrongfully copies many of the commands and keystrokes as well as the screen displays of Visicalc and that Lotus and Kapor deliberately sought to make the 1-2-3 program look and feel like Visicalc.''

Lotus has used the ''look and feel'' argument in lawsuits against two smaller companies, Paperback Software International of Berkeley, Calif., and Mosaic Software Inc. of Cambridge. Both make spreadsheets that essentially match the functions of 1-2-3 but sell at a lower price.

Critics contend that Lotus is trying not to guard its copyrights but to stifle competition from newer, and some say superior, variants. Lotus has sold more than three million copies of 1-2-3, which allows users to do complicated financial calculations with a few keystrokes.

''In our view, this lawsuit is entirely without merit and we intend to demonstrate as much in court,'' said Greg Jarboe, the Lotus spokesman. ''We have been advised that the two men who created Visicalc, Dan Bricklin and Robert Frankston, have already publicly denied having anything to do with the lawsuit's filing. So far as we can determine, this lawsuit was an ill-considered first strike by parties who have been preparing to release their own clone of Lotus 1-2-3.''

Inventor Opposes Suit

Mr. Frankston is now a Lotus employee, having moved to the company with the sale of Visicalc to Lotus last June. In a statement released by Lotus yesterday, he said, ''For a wide varity of reasons, I disagree with the filing of this lawsuit and as a board member of SAPC voted against it.'' Mr. Frankston said he had resigned from the SAPC board yesterday morning.

Mr. Bricklin, who remains a shareholder of SAPC, now heads his own company, Software Garden.

Commenting on Lotus's response, Julian E. Lange, the executive vice president of SAPC, denied that his company was developing a ''clone,'' or copy, of 1-2-3. However, he said that he and two other officers of SAPC were officers of a company called Ontio that had developed a spreadsheet called Ontio 2-5-9.

Ontio officials tried to initiate discussions about their new spreadsheet with Lotus, Mr. Lange said, but Lotus's lawyers did not respond.

In any event, Mr. Lange said, a successful suit by SAPC against Lotus would have adverse effects for Ontio.

Copyright 1987 The New York Times Company