Paperback Software International

Paperback Software International Ltd. was a software company founded in the 1980s by Adam Osborne to manufacture discount software such as spreadsheet (VP-Planner), database (VP-Info) and information management (VP-Expert) software. The company was found guilty by a United States court of copyright violation for copying the appearance and menu system of Lotus 1-2-3 in its competing spreadsheet program, even though they did use different computer code.[1][2][3][4] The loss of this lawsuit was the main cause for the foundering of the company and paved the way for future copyright law on computer software.

Paperback Software International
Limited
IndustrySoftware Engineering
FateDissolved
FounderAdam Osborne
Headquarters
United States

Not only was VP Planner cheaper, it was regarded by some as better.[5] Adam Osborne's US Paperback Software business folded following lengthy litigation with Lotus Software.[6] The litigation began in 1987, when Lotus initially won a copyright claim in 1990 against Paperback Software.[7] Lotus sued Borland over the latter’s Quattro Pro spreadsheet[8][9] but, after six years of litigation, lost the lawsuit. The court ruled that it is not copyright infringement to use the Lotus interface as a subset, but, by then, Paperback Software had folded, and Lotus 1-2-3 had faced intense competition from Microsoft Excel.

VP-Info remains in use and continues to be available for download from public software archives, and through the Wayback Machine. VP-Info was revised and updated and re-published by SubRosa Corporation as the Shark database management application.[10]

References
  1. bsobel (January 19, 2015). "Lotus Development Corp. v. Paperback Software International". H2O. H2O. Retrieved May 29, 2016.
  2. Gerard J. Lewis (1991). "COMMENT: LOTUS DEVELOPMENT CORP. V. PAPERBACK SOFTWARE INTERNATIONAL: BROAD COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR USER INTERFACES IGNORES THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY'S TREND TOWARD STANDARDIZATION". LexisNexis. LexisNexis. Retrieved May 29, 2016.
  3. Brian Johnson. "An Analysis of the Copyrightability of the "Look and Feel" of a Computer Program: Lotus v. Paperback Software" (PDF). The Ohio State University Law Review. Retrieved May 29, 2016.
  4. Pamela Samuelson (1992). "Computer Programs, User Interfaces, and Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act of 1976: A Critique of Lotus v Paperback". Duke Law. Duke Law. Retrieved May 29, 2016.
  5. InfoWorld VP Planner Product Review.
  6. Russo, J. and J. Nafziger. "Software 'Look and Feel' Protection in the 1990s"
  7. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Paperback Software Int'l, 740 F. Supp. 37 (D. Mass. 1990)
  8. "Action in Lotus's Lawsuit".
  9. "LOTUS DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. BORLAND INTERNATIONAL INC., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995)". Cornell Law. Retrieved May 29, 2016.
  10. VP-Info


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.