On Jan 22, 2004, at 13:59, Jakob Bohm wrote:
TINLA, IANAL
Nor am I.
How does this relate to (override, narrow, whatever) the precedent set by Lotus vs. Borland (the famous case about Quattro Pro reproducing the "Look and Feel" of Lotus-1-2-3, partially because it was also the Lotus-1-2-3 macro language API?)
Lotus v. Borland relied on "methods of operation" not being copyrightable. The court found that the menus were how a person operated Lotus, and thus were not copyrightable.
I haven't read that decision in a little while, but I think it even mentions that were it not for that, there was clear infringement.
I'm not sure APIs would be considered a "method of operation." I think it could be argued for documented, public interfaces; arguing it for undocumented ones is harder. But, as I said, IANAL, TINLA, and TINLC.