The trial scene at the Supreme Court Building in Washington.
The situation in the arbitration court was far from being as tense as the media and the public outside who were waiting for news had imagined. At this moment, the friends of the court representatives in the spectators' seats were like stone statues, looking expressionlessly at the judges on the podium.
The scenes we often see on TV, such as lawyers arguing passionately and judges waving their gavels to signal silence, are completely invisible in the Supreme Court.
The legal teams on both sides were very rational and remained calm throughout. Often, they did not even wait for the judge to speak. As soon as he made a gesture, the lawyers on both sides understood the judge's intention and either stopped questioning the witnesses immediately or adjusted their questions as requested by the judge and asked questions that were more closely related to the case.
Because this is the Supreme Court, if you express the slightest dissatisfaction with the justices on the stage, or react slowly, you may easily be deemed to be in contempt of court by the other party. Being kicked out is the lightest punishment. If you really make the other party unhappy, you may even be punished by the Bar Association.
As for why the behavior in court would be punished by the Bar Association, of course it is because all the big names in the American judicial community have lawyers' licenses and are members of the Bar Association, including the Chief Justice on the stage.
In the American judicial system, the two professions of lawyers and judges have always been in constant transition, with no clear dividing line.
The Supreme Court does not have a jury like the other two courts. There are five judges on the podium, one presiding justice and four jury judges. Everyone knows that when the trial ends, there is no jury vote to decide the winner. Instead, the nine judges of the Supreme Court give the final decision by voting in a judges' meeting.
"I feel that the United States can function normally without laws, Holly? Do you feel the same way?" Jason White, who was sitting in the party seat, lowered his voice and said to Holly beside him:
"I mean, after nearly a year, Actor finally reached the third trial. The judge actually made the decision by voting. The first two times it was the jury, and this time it was the judge. If this is the case, what do we need the law for? It would be better to let the plaintiff and the defendant play rock-paper-scissors in public. The winner wins and the loser loses. Two out of three games represent the three-tier court system in the United States."
Holly glanced at the podium to make sure the judge didn't notice Jason: "Shut up, Jason, and keep your emotions in check. If you mess up, you know Tommy's methods, and he will make you pay a heavy price."
At this time, Jon Meyer, the lead lawyer for the plaintiff Lotus and a partner at Sidley Austin LLP, was summoning the defendant Actor's expert witness, Dan Bricklin, CEO of Soft Arts, to question the court on professional issues.
So-called expert witnesses, as opposed to factual witnesses, are people who have professional experience in the field in which the case occurs. Their testimony in court represents the opinions of industry professionals rather than factual evidence of what occurred.
Actor Company has prepared several such expert witnesses, who are actually similar in nature to amicus curiae. One type gives opinions to the court in professional writing, and the other type invites professionals to the scene to give opinions to the court, in order to persuade the judge to favor Actor Company as much as possible.
Before speaking, expert witnesses on both sides often need to undergo scrutiny questioning by the other party's lawyer in order to determine whether the other party is professional. If the expert witness's answer is picked out by the lawyer, the expert witness may not even have the opportunity to speak formally, and will be asked to leave the court directly on the grounds that his professionalism is questioned, and then be replaced by the next one.
Thirty-three-year-old Dan Bricklin sat in the witness stand and nodded to the judge that he was ready.
After the judge announced the start of the questioning, Jon Meyer stood up from his lawyer's seat, walked to a distance of about five meters from Dan Bricklin, and stared down at Dan Bricklin's eyes, as if he was ready to rush up and grab Dan Bricklin by the collar at any time.
This made Dan Bricklin, a highly intelligent engineer who developed the spreadsheet software VisiCala and is recognized by the software industry as the "father of spreadsheets", subconsciously shrink back.
Delia Case observed Jon Meyer's actions and looked at her companions from time to time. As long as her companions gave a confirmatory answer, she would immediately speak up to stop Jon Meyer's actions, but unfortunately, no one gave her a positive answer.
The court stipulates that without the judge's permission, lawyers on both sides are not allowed to get within five meters of the witness to avoid exerting a sense of oppression on the witness at close range, which may cause negligence in the witness' testimony.
If Jon Meyer stepped within five meters and Delia Keyes spoke up to stop him, the court's impression of Lotus would be lowered. On the contrary, if Jon Meyer did not violate the court rules and spoke up rashly, the judge would question his professionalism.
On the stage of the Supreme Court, lawyers have to constantly look for weapons to attack their opponents from any aspect, subtle movements, ambiguous wording, even the pitch of their voices, etc., because the understanding of the law is no longer important here, and even everything that is happening at the moment is no longer important. The justices may have already come up with an answer that they tend to support and are just waiting for the trial to end and the vote to be completed.
This is the magic of American justice. People outside are waiting for the result, but lawyers understand that all of this is mostly a formality. Unless there is extremely exaggerated evidence and testimony that can affect the verdict, the result is unlikely to change.
Jon Meier stared at Dan Bricklin and spoke word by word: "Mr. Witness, as the head of a software company, how long do you think it takes to develop a software with spreadsheet and electronic document functions? How much time can be saved by borrowing or copying other similar software? I need you to answer from a professional perspective."
"In terms of functional implementation, a computer programmer can develop it independently in one month. I developed VisiCalc in two months. Generally speaking, it is not a complex functional software that does not require connection or additional expansion. Yes, one month is enough. As for the second question, I think... you should know the answer, Mr. Lawyer. Lotus 1-2-3 quietly completed the borrowing of VisiCalc in two months."
Jon Meier immediately turned his head and looked at the judge: "Your Honor, I think the expert witness' testimony is not fair enough. I request..."
"Your Honor, the expert witness' testimony was simply a statement of facts, and the opposing attorney's questions were deliberately misleading. The second question clearly deviated from professionalism." Delia Case immediately stood up and began to defend herself to the judge.
The judge just nodded numbly: "I agree with the defendant's lawyer. Plaintiff's lawyer, you only need to ask questions to confirm the witness' professionalism."
"I think the defendant invited Mr. Dan Bricklin to serve as a professional witness for another purpose, because Mr. Dan Bricklin's Soft Art Company has some disputes with Lotus. Under such circumstances, it is impossible for Mr. Dan Bricklin to give professional and fair opinions to the court." Jon Meier turned around, looked at Dan Bricklin, and insisted.
Dan Bricklin lowered his head to look at his hands, then looked at Mickey Kapur and Jonathan Sachs in the plaintiff's seat, and finally spoke gently to the presiding judge:
"Before the spreadsheet software I developed was installed on the Apple II, the sales of that computer were 35,000 units that year. The next year, the same computer was installed with VisiCala, and the sales were 220,000 units. I created the spreadsheet software category, the world's first spreadsheet software. I am sure that I am here because of my professionalism, not personal grudges, your honor."
"Plaintiff's attorney, do you have any questions about Mr. Dan Bricklin's professionalism?" The judge nodded and asked Jon Meyer.
At this time, Mickey Kapur in the plaintiff's seat whispered to the lawyer next to him, and soon Jon Mayer received the message from his employer and spread his hands: "I have no other questions, your honor."
"Mr. Dan Bricklin, from a professional's perspective, what do you think about the OSS software and Lotus 1-2-3 software in this case?" The judge made a gesture to Dan Bricklin to speak.
Dan Bricklin looked at the plaintiff's seat and the defendant's seat with complicated eyes, and finally retracted his gaze, looked at the judge and spoke calmly:
"From a professional perspective, the software industry cannot be like traditional industries, where every company builds patent barriers and traps itself into an island. The software industry needs to develop, and it needs an open ecological environment. Frankly speaking, if we talk about patents and copyrights, the software industry should not exist. Only IBM, Xerox, Texas Instruments and other companies that have been established for decades or hundreds of years exist because they have built the foundation of the computer industry. Most of the industry players today are just climbing up on the shoulders of giants. I am not saying that the software industry does not need patent protection. I just don't want the software industry to abuse patents like other industries. I can't understand why software interfaces are accused of infringement because of similar software interfaces. Software interfaces should not be patented. Users are used to tables at the top of the screen and function menus at the bottom of the screen, or tables on the left and menus on the right. Is there any technical content in this? No, the interface can be completely different by just adjusting the code. Why not adjust it? It's just a convention and users don't need to get used to it. All this is just for the convenience of software users." Dan Bricklin said:
"It's like there are so many TV channels in the United States. When viewers turn on the TV to watch different news programs, they will find that the news host sits on the left and the small screen appears on the right. Why doesn't NBC sue ABC for plagiarizing their news programs? Because they all know that this kind of seat adjustment has no meaning for the news program, your honor."
The judge looked at the document in front of him and asked, "The court received a piece of OSS software sent by Actor to Lotus. We found some identical codes in the software. Will the same code appear in similar software?"
"No, if there is no special reason, two different software will not have the same code, because the code is written independently by the developers and will not be identical under normal circumstances. Even if there is plagiarism, the code will not be plagiarized, but the functions of similar software will be copied. For example, software A has a very convenient cell comment function, but similar software B does not. In this case, software company B can buy a copy of software A, experience this function, and then write its own code to implement the same function on software B. In other words, the two functions look exactly the same, and the methods they implement are also the same. They may use the same programming language and compiler, but the writing process is completely different. As long as the court checks the development log and source code, it will be clear." Dan Bricklin said with certainty.
The judge continued : "As a professional, Mr. Bricklin, under what circumstances do you think two software programs would have the same code?"
"Code plagiarism is the most common. The source code of a certain software is obtained through some means, and then it is redesigned. The code inside will be similar, and the proportion will be very high, basically more than 50%. The second is tribute, adding some tribute code Easter eggs, just like some settings in the game, which can only be discovered under certain circumstances. In this case, there may be one or several very small pieces of code, and their deletion will have no effect on the software. Their existence mainly lies in the developer's desire to implicitly express some emotions."
"Thank you for your opinion, Mr. Bricklin." The judge looked at the lawyers on both sides and asked, "Do either side have any questions for this expert witness?"
Delia Case was the first to decline. These expert witnesses were originally brought in to make trouble for Lotus. As long as the judge asked valid questions, there was no need to waste time asking similar questions again. She would only request to ask questions if the judge did not ask some questions that Delia felt would be beneficial to Actor and would make it easier for the expert witnesses to speak and more persuasive.
Jon Meyer seemed to want to stand up and speak, but Mickey Kapur stopped him. Finally, after repeated confirmation, Jon Meyer declined. However, he seemed a little dissatisfied with Mickey Kapur for stopping him and wanted to understand his employer's intentions.
Witnesses from both sides took turns to appear in this environment.
This kind of trial is to throw out all the witness evidence collected by one's side at once, because after today, these witness evidence will be useless.
Both parties involved need to sit in the witness stand and speak. For example, Holly Keener, who appeared at this time, sat in the witness stand and accepted questioning from the other party's lawyer.
"Ms. Keener, have you ever used Lotus software before you founded Actor?" Jon Meyer asked gently, sounding more like a kind teacher than a lawyer.
Holly nodded. "Of course. I used to work part-time at the Entrepreneurship Center of the School of Engineering at Stanford University. I needed to deal with various spreadsheets, and I often used Lotus software."
"Very good. When you saw that the operation of OSS software was similar to that of Lotus software and the interface was amazing, didn't you wonder why OSS software was so similar to the Lotus software you used before?" Jon Meyer continued to ask Holly with a smile.
Holly looked Jon Mayer in the eye and gave a direct negative answer: "Why question it? They are not similar at all."
"During your time at Actor, did you never worry about the potential for trouble from software duplication?" Jon Meyer nodded slightly.
Holly affirmed: "Never, because we are doing the right thing."
Jon Meier showed a triumphant smile on his face and asked again: "Are you sure, Ms. Keener?"
"Sure." Holly said.
Jon Meier turned his head and looked at the judge: "Your Honor, I think Miss Holly Keener's testimony is not credible. She is lying. She once questioned the legality of OSS software. For this reason, our investigators with court permission can submit call records to prove that her statement that she never questioned it is a lie. Based on this issue, I would like to call in our character witness to question Miss Holly Keener's character."
A character witness is one who has evidence that Lotus suspects that Holly Keener's remarks are not credible. This is because she is not just a witness but an important figure on one of the parties involved. Therefore, a character witness will be invited to appear in court to explain to the court why the other party's remarks should be selectively listened to.
"Allowed." The judge flipped through the text version of the call record and gave his answer.
Jon Meier introduced the character witness: "This is Ms. Rena Frey, Miss Holly Keener's cousin."
"I protest, Your Honor. I think the other side's character witness is not reliable. Miss Holly Keener has not seen Ms. Reina Frey since they graduated from high school. She cannot give any character testimony about what happened to her in college." Delia Keyes immediately stood up and protested that the other side's choice of character witness was not reliable.
Jon Meyer also spoke quickly: "Your Honor, Ms. Reina Frey is Miss Holly Keener's relative and grew up with her. I think the testimony of a relative is more credible."
"The protest is invalid. The character witness is allowed to speak." The judge glanced at Delia Case and rejected her protest.
The moment Holly Keener saw her cousin standing opposite her, Tommy Hawke's appearance flashed through her mind, and his words rang in her ears:
"You have wavered before, so the other party will definitely dig up the past that you least want to recall, attack you fiercely, crush your armor, tear open your defenses, make you collapse, lose your composure, and then catch your loopholes and knock you to the ground! Holly Keener, you must convince yourself that you fucked your cousin's boyfriend because you are charming enough. You need to bite her in public in court to let her understand one thing! That is, you can not only steal her man! You can also say in public in court that she is an ugly bitch! No one wants to fuck an ugly bitch! This is why I can't help fucking you while I'm teaching you now! You are a beautiful she-wolf!"
The judge opened the conversation with the character witness, Holly's cousin, and asked, "Ms. Frey, how long have you known Miss Holly Keener?"
"From the time we were born until now, we only stopped seeing each other after we graduated from high school," Reina Frey said.
"What do you know about Miss Holly Keener?"
"I'm her cousin, we grew up together, and I know everything about her."
"The plaintiff's attorney said you are willing to testify regarding Miss Holly Keener's character. What is your assessment of Miss Holly Keener's character?"
"She is a woman who lies all the time. She pretends to be a good sister in front of the crowd, but actually steals your things from behind. When she is discovered, she puts on an innocent expression. She has many masks and many personalities. Your Honor, nothing she says is worthy of trust..."
"Your Honor, Miss Holly Keener requests the floor." Delia Case stood up and said as soon as the other party finished speaking.
The judge nodded: "Allowed."
Holly looked at her cousin as if she were a stranger and said lightly:
"Your Honor, if a loser in a love triangle in high school can appear here openly and testify against my character, then can I say that this character witness is not qualified to testify because she certainly never told me about how she bullied me? I can fill a diary with it, but that is not the focus of this trial. I hope the other party will testify against my character. I am an adult and no longer the little girl in high school. I hope it is the insiders who deal with me who can testify against my character, rather than someone who painstakingly finds a woman who was dumped by her boyfriend because she was too ugly but dares not blame her boyfriend and can only blame her ignorant cousin? I would rather believe that the other party really couldn't find any other character witnesses to question me, so they could only find Ms. Reina Frey, but I don't think she is qualified to testify against my character because..."
Holly paused and continued:
"She has a history of smoking marijuana. If the court allows an extension, I can find my former classmates and teachers to testify for me. This is the Supreme Court. I don't think a marijuana-smoking lady who has done nothing after graduating from high school can accuse a Stanford college student who has no blemishes and excellent academic performance. I don't think she received a bribe when she appeared here. I believe it was out of jealousy. Reina Frey has lived in my shadow because of her mediocrity since she was a child, which caused her psychological problems. She has said many times before that she envied or was jealous of me. I can find witnesses. I also asked the court to arrange for a psychologist to treat her. She is ugly and has a negative attitude..."
"Fuck you, bitch!" Reina Frey was enraged by Holly's light but vicious words. She no longer cared about Jon Mayer's previous instructions and stood up from her seat and yelled at Holly Keener: "You fucking stole my man! I..."
"Bailiff!" the judge spoke immediately.
The bailiff immediately stepped forward to restrain Reina Frey, Jon Meier lowered his head in frustration, and Delia Keyes immediately spoke to the judge: "Your Honor, I believe that the other party's character witness is out of control and unfit to continue testifying."
"Agreed, clerk, delete the record of Ms. Reina Frey's speech. Her speech is of no reference value due to emotional issues." said the judge.
Jon Meier sighed.
…
After Jason White sat down, Jon Meier asked, "Mr. Jason White, there are a lot of records of your spending here, most of which are from entertainment companies. Can you explain it?"
"I don't have a girlfriend, Stanford University is stressful, and I'm an adult, so what's the problem? I don't quite understand why I have to explain such a personal matter." Jason looked at the other person with a confused look on his face.
Jon Meyer shrugged. "Of course, no problem. It's just that these expenses make me doubt the original intention of Actor to establish a public welfare cause and respect women. Your consumption records show that you don't respect women as you described in your speeches at universities around the world."
"I have to understand women more deeply so that I can respect them better." Jason blurted out without even thinking.
This answer stunned Jon Meyer, the judge, and even most of the people at the scene. If this sentence was not fully explained, it would easily leave a negative impression in the judge's mind.
Jon Mayer didn't expect Jason White to give such a good entry point: "Very good, then please describe in court how you know women in depth."
Jason White took a deep breath. During this period of time, he had been running around various universities and giving various speeches. His acting skills had improved a lot. At this moment, he said with a somewhat sad expression:
"Your Honor, I have evidence and witnesses to prove that the money I spent did not come from Actor Company, but from the film company. In addition to being the founder of Actor Company, I am also a registered actor of the California Minor Film Actors Guild. Yes, I have made some movies that are not suitable for children, and I rely on making money to support the development of Actor Company. That period was very difficult for Actor Company. Everything was just starting out, and we received a lawyer's letter from Lotus Company. Tommy and Holly were both worried because they were worried that Lotus, a big company in the industry, would destroy the newly born Actor Company like an elephant crushing an ant. So I stood up. Yes, I registered as an actor and made money from making movies to help the company save up some legal fees..."
The whole audience let out their first exclamation. Men and women in the spectators looked at Jason White as if he were a monster. Oh my God, was he saving money for his lawyers by making small films?
Even if he swung that club until it was scrapped, he still might not be able to save enough money to pay for a game. How confident is this guy in his physical fitness?
In the shocked eyes of the audience, Jason said emotionally: "Later, Tommy learned the news that I wanted to hide. He was my roommate and saw that my reaction was not normal. I was exhausted during that period of time and had no interest in work or the opposite sex. Tommy was very moved, but he also scolded me, saying that I couldn't destroy myself for the sake of charity. In the end, he decided to give up the plan to launch all OSS software for free in order to save up legal fees. Instead, he charged for the first 100,000 sets to earn legal fees. I also received film remuneration later, and I wanted to invest this remuneration in the company, but Tommy asked me to treat my sexual frigidity. I consulted a doctor, and the treatment plan they gave was to find some attractive girls from entertainment companies to help me recover in all aspects. This is why I have so many consumption records."
Not only the lawyers on the other side, but even the five judges on the stage were stunned. Two of them even subconsciously looked at the other members of the Stanford lawyer team beside Delia, with shock in their eyes as if "your school is really impressive in the field of all-round development of students."
Several Stanford Law School bigwigs lowered their heads and avoided looking anyone in the eye.
"Plaintiff's attorney, Mr. Jason White has already answered your question. Do you have any other questions?" The judge came to his senses and gave a kind reminder to the plaintiff's attorney.
Jon Meier shook his head repeatedly: "No, Your Honor, but I doubt the truthfulness of the other party's answer."
"I have submitted the videotape of the film I participated in to the court. You can watch it without leaking it." Jason White added dissatisfiedly when he heard that the old man did not believe his touching speech.
Jon Meier looked at Jason speechlessly: "Thank you. After hearing what you said, I choose to believe you, Mr. White."
Although Tommy Hawke did not come today, the two parties present, although young, are no longer ordinary college students.
One who doesn't care about having his scandal exposed, but instead deliberately uses tricky words to anger the character witness.
The other one was even more exaggerated, shameless, saying that calling a prostitute could be a treatment, and even said if you don't believe me, go watch the movie I made...
Let's not talk about whether I can endure watching such an intense movie at my age. If I really watch it and it is leaked one day, and the other party holds the court responsible, I, as someone who has seen it, will inevitably be involved. The court will only be responsible for confirming the authenticity of the videotape. I am not interested in watching that kind of video.
Mickey Kapur and Jonathan Sachs who followed were also obviously well-instructed by their lawyers. Their testimonies were flawless and the defendant Delia Keys did not find any loopholes to launch a counterattack.
Delia sighed. Both sides had almost presented their evidence. Judging from the situation, the case would soon enter the final debate stage, followed by the ruling and judgment.
“Keep an eye on Jim Manz.”
Seeing Jim Mantz appear on the stage wearing a baseball cap, Delia suddenly remembered Tommy's words. That was a sentence he mentioned when he was discussing the trial with her before. Tommy suggested that Delia ask a few questions about Jim Mantz. If there is a chance to gain points with the judge, the chance should be on Jim Mantz. That guy has tolerated the nerd for so long, he must want to add fuel to the fire himself.
"Mr. Jim Manz, is the reason for your resignation related to this lawsuit?" Delia asked.
"No, I personally like more challenging work. Lotus is developing steadily and I can't muster the motivation, so I chose to resign."
"You had previously made formal contact with Actor and proposed a settlement and acquisition of Lotus. Why did this plan fall through?"
"During internal discussions, the company felt that Actor's technology level did not seem to be worth acquiring, so the plan was abandoned."
"Was it you who gave the assessment of Actor's technical level, or someone else?"
"Mickey and Jonathan, I don't understand technology. They are technical geniuses. Of course, they should decide on this matter."
"Here is a log of the software update plan provided by an anonymous person from Lotus. It shows that after receiving the OSS software, Lotus suddenly requested to implement certain functions of the OSS software during the development process of Lotus 1-2-3. When I asked Mr. Mickey Kapur and Mr. Jonathan Sachs before, they both said that this was a decision made when you were in office. After they found out, they immediately canceled the development of those functions. However, the log shows that the function codes were almost copied from OSS."
"Me?" Jim Manz looked at Mickey Kapur and Jonathan Sachs in shock.
The two of them looked at him with a smile on their faces, which made Jim couldn't help but curse in his heart. These two idiots really thought that they had broken up peacefully with Lotus and that they had no dissatisfaction in their hearts?
It was indeed me who urged him to do this, but I am not ready to admit it at this time.
Jim Manz said to Delia: "I don't understand technology, whether it's joining or canceling... I don't understand software. I'm just responsible for selling software. If there are any development issues with the software, I don't know much about it."
These sudden words made Mickey and Jonathan, who had just smiled and greeted Jim Manz, open their eyes wide, not understanding why this guy suddenly lied in court!
Delia's eyes lit up, and she immediately said to the judge, "Your Honor, the witness's words seem to indicate that Mickey Kapur and Jonathan Sacks, the two Lotus company executives, had plagiarized OSS code, and it was not as they said that it was led by Mr. Jim Manz when he was in office. This makes me question the authenticity of the previous statements made by Mr. Mickey Kapur and Mr. Jonathan Sacks."
"Your Honor, I suspect that our witness is testifying with malicious intent. I request that his status as a witness be terminated to determine whether he has any vested interest in Actor." Jon Meyer also spoke immediately.
The judge looked at Jon Meyer in confusion. "But Mr. Jim Manzi is a witness invited by the plaintiff to testify about certain details of the contact in this case, and the information submitted shows that he has no connection with Actor. I don't think he testified maliciously, and the court does not feel that Mr. Jim Manzi has any ill will towards Lotus. He is just stating the facts. I propose to dismiss the case. Mr. Jim Manzi, please continue speaking."
"All Lotus employees can prove that I do not interfere in technical work. How could I have an opinion on technical issues in front of two technical geniuses?" Jim Manz said with a frank look in his eyes.
"That's what you asked me to add!" Seeing Jim's expression, Jonathan couldn't help but shout, "You came to my office and urged me to add those features! Let's speed up the market!"
"Quiet, plaintiff," the judge reminded.
Delia continued, "If Mr. Jonathan Sacks insists that the technical work of software development process is led by Mr. Jim Manzi, then Mr. Jim Manzi had no involvement in the evaluation of Actor's technical level, which is a lie. Moreover, he insisted on acquiring Actor. If he had influence in the company, then the settlement would have been reached long ago. I think it can only prove that one of Mr. Jim Manzi and Mr. Jonathan Sacks is lying, and I tend to think that Mr. Jonathan Sacks lied."
"Jim! Why did you lie? You were bribed!" Jonathan still couldn't help shouting at Jim.
He didn't understand why Jim Manz lied. He and Mickey didn't owe him salary and didn't set any restrictions for him. It was just because he insisted on acquiring Actor and the two sides had different ideas. Why did he discover this scene at this moment!
Jim said to the judge calmly, "I didn't lie, and I wasn't bribed. Your Honor, I am in charge of business affairs at Lotus and have no say in technical work such as development and updates. The decision-making power lies with Mickey and Jonathan. I once suggested acquiring Lotus because Mickey and Jonathan praised the many convenient functions of OSS software. I think acquiring this small company will make Lotus stronger, but Mickey and Jonathan rejected my proposal. They felt that Actor was not worth acquiring and that they could achieve those functions without acquiring it. That's all I know."
"You're lying!" Even Mickey couldn't help but say, "You once suggested suing Actor. Jonathan and I were the ones who proposed the acquisition!"
Jim didn't even look at Mickey, but said to the judge: "I have no connection with either company now, no conflict, I don't need to lie, your honor, this is the truth, everything I said is true, I am willing to take responsibility for every word."
Seeing Jonathan and Mickey roaring excitedly in the court, Jim laughed out loud in his heart.
You two idiots, I worked so hard to protect Lotus, and then you didn't trust me at all. Now you know how a bastard like me treats strangers. You don't need to give me any benefits, and I'm willing to do anything to take advantage of you for free.
That bastard Tommy Hawke arranged the lawyers to ask very precise questions. He seemed to know what the lawyer wanted to say and asked the questions at a comfortable angle very early on.
I was clearly helping that bastard, but I still felt the pleasure of saying thank you.
When Delia saw Jonathan's loss of composure, a smile appeared on her lips. Tommy's eyes were really accurate in judging people. Even she didn't expect that Jim Manz would actually slap the two founders of Lotus in the face in court.
Of course, it's not without cost. Whenever Jim Manz looks for a job in the future, employers will be worried that this kind of thing will happen to them, so it will be much more difficult for him to find a job than before.
Most people would be concerned about this and would not normally behave in this way towards their former employer, but Tommy concluded that Jim Manz had been pissed off for so long that he would rather risk having trouble finding a job than teach two idiots a lesson.
It now appears that Tommy guessed right again.
Moreover, this lawsuit was merged with Actor's counterclaim against Lotus for plagiarism, and Jim Manz's remarks had a greater impact on the merged counterclaim case.
The presiding judge, Hart Bronx, struck the gavel for the first time in the trial, signaling the plaintiff to be quiet. Jon Mayer sighed grimly. Under normal circumstances, the audience should not be given the opportunity to strike the gavel to signal silence. Which side is struck with the gavel will be recorded and will become a point of contention when the judges discuss the final verdict. At this time, the performance of Lotus founder Jonathan has obviously lowered the plaintiff's impression score.
"Does the plaintiff have any other witnesses or evidence to provide?" Jon Meyer shook his head.
"Does the defendant have any other witnesses or evidence to provide?" Delia Case also shook her head.
The judge said, "This case has entered the final statement. In the following period, the lawyers of both parties can directly explain to the court their understanding of the legal principles of this case from all aspects and give the final conclusion. Plaintiff."
Jon Meier sorted out the documents in his hand, stood up, and said in a loud voice:
"Your Honor, computer software is an independent entity and should have complete patent protection rights. In this case, the OSS software developed by Actor Company has plagiarized Lotus 1-2-3, a software owned by Lotus Company, to varying degrees in terms of operating interface and code. This is extremely serious corporate theft. Both the Patent Law and the Copyright Law clearly mark the protection of patents and copyrights. The defendant Actor Company uses the public interest as an excuse, but it cannot cover up their actual infringement. The defendant claims that the similar software parts do not constitute an important part of the software as a whole, which should not be a reason for the court to refer to. We have always believed that Lotus 1-2-3, as a whole, is entitled to complete copyright protection. When making a judgment, it should be assumed that the copyright is complete rather than segmented. Therefore, we request the court to rule that the other party has actually infringed and compensate Lotus Company for a series of losses caused by the infringement."
Delia also took the prepared statement from the team lawyer:
"Your Honor, the characteristic of U.S. copyright law is the idea-expression dichotomy. Copyright law only protects original expression, not creativity. When the court decides relevant cases, it should adopt the commonly used abstraction-filtering-comparison method to first determine which parts of the software are protected and which are not. However, so far, our country's laws have not made subdivided legal provisions and relevant standards based on the emerging thing of computer software to guide practitioners in related industries. The same is true for patents. Patent protection cannot cover other matters and processes that extend from the same idea. We believe that Lotus 1-2-3 of Lotus is a unique original expression and should be protected by law. However, OSS developed based on the same idea does not infringe. It is just that the two companies are the same in the creative stage. The similarity of functions does not mean plagiarism, and The other party repeatedly expressed that the operating interface was plagiarized, but there is no relevant legal constraint at all. If the operating interface is similar, the entire software is considered plagiarized. I think this is a bullying behavior of Lotus, a company with profound influence in the industry, against the small company Actor. The evidence submitted by our side also stated that more than 20 small studios have stated that their own software has been warned by Lotus's lawyers because of similar functions. This behavior of the other party is not only aimed at Actor, but also at all similar product companies. I think this copyright protection method is too dangerous. It means that Lotus can monopolize the entire similar software and related functions. Based on the above discussion, I request the court to rule that Actor has not infringed and hold Lotus responsible for the relevant losses caused by a series of targeted actions. "
After the lawyers on both sides delivered their final statements swiftly, the judge announced a recess and the five judges stood up and left the courtroom one after another.
Next they will go to another meeting room to discuss and vote and make a final decision.
Holly looked at Jason excitedly: "We will definitely win, right?"
"Of course. I even made a fucking small movie. Now the whole world might know that I'm a small movie actor. The sacrifice was so great, and then we lost the lawsuit. I can't think of another way to comfort myself except to hang Tommy." Jason said as he looked at the empty podium.
Although Delia Keyes and the lawyers from Stanford Law School were resting calmly, chatting quietly, or sorting documents, they were all somewhat excited and could not hide it.
Although Tommy had created a lot of momentum before, the final decision-making power lies only with the nine justices of the Supreme Court. What if a few of them suddenly get angry and insist on helping Lotus to defend its rights even if they are criticized and resign...
After all, the Supreme Court Justice serves for life. Unless they resign voluntarily, they can continue to sit in that chair. Even the president can do nothing about it. The public can scold congressmen until they resign, but it would probably be difficult to scold the Supreme Court Justice until he resigns.
The precedent is already beckoning to them. This case will define a series of legal issues involving copyright and patents for the computer software industry and determine whether many sub-items of computer software are protected by copyright. When subsequent related bills are drafted and legislated, and there are similar cases, the documents and speeches of these people will continue to be cited in court. Even themselves and their companions at this moment may have countless computer software companies take the initiative to come to them tomorrow to discuss cooperation, because as long as they win this case, they will be the legal authority in this industry.
After nearly three hours of recess, the presiding judge, Hart Bronx, slowly sat back on the podium in the courtroom, holding a piece of light paper in his hand. When he saw the other party appear, the hall suddenly fell silent, and all eyes were on the ruling in the other party's hand, which determined the fate of the two companies.
"The final concurring opinion in this case was written by Justice David Souter. Nine justices, including the Chief Justice, voted. Six justices agreed with the final opinion, and three justices disagreed with the ruling given by the court," the judge said slowly.
At the same time, several chaotic footsteps were heard outside, suddenly rang out and then gradually weakened. It sounded like several people running away quickly, which made everyone in the hall even more anxious. They were worried that they would know the result a few minutes later than the audience outside.
The Supreme Court stipulates that there shall be no equipment for recording images and sounds during the trial. Once a verdict is given, in addition to the judge announcing it to both parties, it will also be communicated to the media at the same time. For a landmark trial like this, all the text records from the opening of the court to the final verdict were printed out without reservation and handed over to an intern at the Supreme Court. The intern then sprinted along the 400-meter-long corridor and handed the results to the responsible news media reporters outside, and informed the supporters of both parties outside the court of the final verdict as soon as possible.
"The Supreme Court has held that ideas that form the basis of any element of a computer program, including ideas that underlie its interface, are not copyrightable..."
Before she finished her first sentence, the whole audience burst into applause. Delia was already excitedly high-fiving her team members. Jon Mayer, Byron Kennedy and others seemed to have anticipated the outcome and just lowered their heads to start sorting out the documents on the table.
Only Mickey Kapur and Jonathan Sachs stared blankly at the Supreme Court Justice who was still speaking slowly, unable to believe what he said at this moment. It was obvious that the other party had plagiarized their software, but he did not get the punishment he deserved?
"After reviewing many professional opinions of amicus curiae, the Supreme Court is convinced that if traditional copyright law and patent law are used unilaterally to protect computer programs, it is equivalent to monopoly thinking and is not conducive to the technological progress and industrial development of the software industry. We believe that Lotus's operating interface and menu command hierarchy are an operating method that is not protected by copyright. It is the user's way of controlling and operating the software. The user must use various functions to inform the computer of his or her needs. Therefore, the menu command hierarchy and operating interface should not be protected by traditional general copyright patents."
"Compared to other industries, the computer software industry places greater emphasis on interoperability. If traditional patent and copyright laws are followed, it is easy to lead to an incompatible software ecosystem, which will have a great negative impact on the development of the US software industry and will easily lead to more copyright and patent abuse cases. Therefore, the Supreme Court decided to discuss with Congress the subdivision of patent and copyright laws based on the computer software industry, and to formulate relevant provisions more clearly based on this case."
"I hereby declare that Lotus's claim against Actor for infringement is dismissed. Actor has not engaged in commercial infringement under existing U.S. law, and the plaintiff's lawsuit based on Section 506 is untenable."
"In the case of Actor's counterclaim against Lotus for plagiarism, based on the statement of Jim Manzi, the plaintiff's witness, and the Lotus software development logs provided by Actor, it can be judged that Lotus did not publicly sell software with the same code as Actor, and did not cause any impact on Actor. However, because Lotus did not disclose the software source code and subsequent development logs to the court in this case, the Supreme Court, in accordance with Article 51 of the Rules of Procedure, provided that Lotus could choose to submit the source code and development logs to the court and the professional evaluation team including Actor within 90 days before the updated version is released, so that the court and Actor can determine that there is no reason for plagiarism, so as to withdraw the lawsuit. It can also apply for a motion to remain silent before the next official commercial update of Lotus' software, and Actor will collect relevant investigation evidence on its own to determine whether to use the plagiarized function for commercial purposes. During this period, Lotus will not be affected by any judgment."
"The Supreme Court believes that future laws and standards for the software industry should allow software developers to develop competing products for copyrighted software without infringing copyrights, which will be more conducive to the development of the industry. This trial is over and we are retired."
The Chief Justice stood up and left the court amid thunderous applause. Afterwards, attorneys representing computer companies, 176 non-profit organizations, and even Delia Case, Holly Keener, and Jason White all looked at the Lotus employees who were packing up their documents and preparing to leave.
There was undisguised greed in his eyes.
Lotus company reached the end of its road at this moment.
Software updates follow Moore's Law. Only when the version is updated at least once a year can it maintain its vitality. Although Actor's counterclaim did not have a definite result, Lotus has been firmly grasped by Actor. Want to update? First hand over the source code to Actor to check it. If you find a mistake, you can forget about launching the software on time. If Lotus dares to launch the software directly, Actro will have the opportunity to collect relevant investigation evidence. The friends of the court who are listening in the court will all become victims of plagiarism and continue to bite. At the same time, other software will compete for the market it lost due to delayed updates. Even if it proves its innocence one day, it may only be able to survive and enjoy the taste of being trapped on an isolated island under perfect standards and laws.
Benjamin Rosen, executive director of EFF and chairman of Compaq Computer, stood up, straightened his suit and walked out. Just then, Seymour Rubinstein, CEO of MicroPort, also stood up and walked out. Seeing him, Benjamin smiled and asked:
"Anything you want to say, Seymour? Do you want to sue Actor for plagiarism as well?"
"A new era of order is coming, but Lotus, which once had the opportunity to establish order, has forever remained in the past. I didn't expect that Lotus would be so stupid as to abandon so much of the industry's hidden power and dig its own grave." The bearded Rubinstein said as he walked:
"The Bible tells us that if people offend each other, God will judge them, but if they offend Jehovah, who will pray for them?"