Account for the court ruling in the four cases discussed above on ethical grounds. That is, explain from an ethics standpoint the court ruling in each case.

a. Whelan vs. Jaslow Case.

Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of Jaslow on the basis of the argument that the structure (sequence and organization) of a computer program is protectable by copyright.

The court ruling is right from an ethics standpoint. If the structure, i.e. sequence and organization of a computer program is very similar, then Whelan’s Dentcom program infringed Jaslow’s copyright on its Dentalab program. One can create or copy a computer program by altering the variable names, using other commands and even using other programming languages. One way to really check if there is a violation of software and copyright law is to check the sequence and organization of the computer program for similarity. Computer programs have to be protected. If an individual wants to develop a similar system, he can possibly do that. If he is honest, he can develop a computer program without copying the original program and for sure there would be some changes and/or enhancements to it.

b.Computer Associates vs. Altai.

Court Ruling: The court decided that Altai’s program did not infringe a program by Computer Associates.

If there were evidences to support that the structure of the program was similar, then the court ruling is not right from an ethics standpoint. It should be that Altai’s program violated software and copyright law. On the other hand, if there were no sufficient evidences to say that the program structure is similar, then the court ruling is right in that aspect.

c. Apple vs. Microsoft.

Court Ruling: The Windows graphical user interface infringed Apple’s copyright on the look and feel of the Macintosh deskstop. Apple lost the case.

If the windows graphical user interface is similar in all aspects (i.e. color, font, size, location, width, height, structure and others), then the court ruling is not right for letting Apple lost the case. System Designers may have the same thinking or view on the contents to be placed on a user interface. It becomes impossible for individuals to have the same user interface, i.e. totally the same in all aspects. If the user interface has the same contents but different presentations, then the court ruling is right in letting Apple lost the case.

d. Lotus sued Paperback software and mosaic software which had produced spreadsheets that have same interface as lotus 1-2-3. Copying the interface itself constituted copyright infringement.

Issue: whether the menu structure or the arrangement of commands in the menu hierarchy in Lotus 123 is coyrightable.

Lotus sued Borland over Quattro.

Quattro’s interface is different from Lotus 1-2-3. Quattro followed the Lotus menu hierarchy and Lotus accused Quattro of copyright infringement. Lotus won at the district court, but Borland appealed and won in the US First Circuit Court.

The case was elevated to the US Supreme Court but the highest court was split and thus no decision was made on this case.

This is similar to item #c. If the menu structure or the arrangement of commands in the menu hierarchy is similar (i.e. same spelling, same font, same sequence, same size and others), then the court ruling is right in letting Lotus won the case. But if there are notable changes and/or differences, then the court ruling is not right in letting Lotus won the case.