Judge Hears Arguments On Software Legal Rights

Jane Fitz Simon
The Boston Globe

September 7, 1988

Did Lotus Development Corp. misappropriate confidential information from Software Arts in designing its best-selling 1-2-3 electronic spreadsheet?

Did Lotus' founder Mitchell Kapor violate a nondisclosure agreement and illegally copy the look and feel of Software Arts' VisiCalc spreadsheet into 1-2-3?

The first phase of a trial that seeks to answer those questions begins today when a judge in US District Court in Boston hears arguments over whether Software Arts has the legal standing to sue Lotus for copyright infringement.

Software Arts sued Lotus for $100 million in April 1987, charging the company with illegally copying elements of VisiCalc to create 1-2-3. After its introduction in 1983, 1-2-3 quickly outsold the path breaking VisiCalc. While 1-2-3 went on to become the best-selling program in history, VisiCalc became obsolete.

The suit is viewed as a crucial test of copyright protection in the software industry. It was filed by two executives who were hired to manage Software Arts, Julian Lange and Tracy Licklider.

Software Arts' founders Dan Bricklin and Bob Frankston opposed the suit. They resigned from the board and publicly criticized the litigation, even though neither had sold their 19 percent stakes in the company.

After SAPC filed its suit, Lotus countersued, denying the charges. Today's trial seeks to establish whether Software Arts' has the right to sue Lotus, or if its claims were extinguished when it sold its assets to Lotus in 1985 for $2.4 million.

Copyright 1988