Editing Lotus 1-2-3 (section)

=== Rivals ===
Lotus 1-2-3 inspired imitators, the first of which was Mosaic Software's "The Twin", written in the fall of 1985 largely in the [[C (programming language)|C programming language]],<ref>{{Cite magazine|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=a91QXlvTPHAC&q=Mosaic+Software+%22The+Twin%22&pg=PA59|title=The Twin: Slow Lotus for Less.|last=Barr|first=Christopher|date=August 1986|magazine=PC Magazine | volume=5 |issue=14 |pages=59–60 |access-date=2019-07-12}}</ref> followed by VP-Planner, which was backed by [[Adam Osborne]].<ref>{{Cite magazine|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_S4EAAAAMBAJ&q=VP-Planner+Adam+Osborne&pg=PA42|title=Osborne's 1-2-3 Clone: VP Planner|last=O'Connor|first=Rory J.|date=19 August 1985|magazine=[[InfoWorld]] |volume=7|issue=33|page=42}}</ref> These were able to not only read 1-2-3 files, but also execute many or most macro programs by incorporating the same command structure. Copyright law had first been understood to only cover the source code of a program. After the success of lawsuits which claimed that the very "[[look and feel]]" of a program were covered, Lotus sought to ban any program which had a compatible command and menu structure. Program commands had not been considered to be covered before, but the commands of 1-2-3 were embedded in the words of the menu displayed on the screen. 1-2-3 won its three-year long court battle against Paperback Software International and Mosaic Software Inc. in 1990.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/29/business/lotus-wins-copyright-decision.html|title=Lotus Wins Copyright Decision|last=Markoff|first=John|newspaper=The New York Times|date=1990-06-29|access-date=2019-07-12 | url-access=limited}}</ref> However, when it sued [[Borland]] over its [[Quattro Pro]] spreadsheet in ''[[Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc.|Lotus v. Borland]]'', a six-year battle that ended at the Supreme Court in 1996, the final ruling appeared to support narrowing the applicability of copyright law to software; this is because the lower court's decision that it was not a copyright violation to merely have a compatible command menu or language was upheld, but only via stalemate.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=c6IS3RnN6qAC&q=lotus+borland&pg=PA63|chapter=Keyboard Commands and Menu Arrangements|last=Graham|first=Lawrence D.|title=Legal Battles that Shaped the Computer Industry |location=Westport, Connecticut |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |pages=63–68 |access-date=2019-07-12|isbn=9781567201789|lccn=99-13620|year=1999}}</ref> In 1995, the First Circuit found that command menus are an uncopyrightable "method of operation" under section 102(b) of the [[Copyright Act of 1976|Copyright Act]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Gesmer|first=Lee T.|date=1 April 1995|title=Perspective: Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International|url=https://www.gesmer.com/news/perspective-lotus-development-corp-v-borland-international|journal=Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly|access-date=12 July 2019|archive-date=6 November 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201106191059/https://www.gesmer.com/news/perspective-lotus-development-corp-v-borland-international|url-status=dead}}</ref> The 1-2-3 menu structure (example, slash File Erase) was itself an advanced version of single letter menus introduced in [[VisiCalc]]. When the case came before the Supreme Court, the justices would end up deadlocked 4–4. This meant that Borland had emerged victorious, but the extent to which copyright law would be applicable to computer software went unaddressed and undefined.<ref>{{Cite magazine|url=https://www.wired.com/1996/06/updata-29/|title=Lotus v. Borland: Deadlock on the Electronic Frontier|last=Spence|first=Kristin|magazine=Wired|date=1996-06-01|access-date=2019-07-12}}</ref><ref name=":0" />