Talk:Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc.

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

I will be improving this article within the next few days as part of the IP WikiProject. Mfinifter (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issue still open?[edit]

"the 4-4 decision reached by the court, combined with the lack of a written opinion, has led many lawyers to believe that this issue addressed in Lotus is still open."

Huh? There is a written opinion. It's the one the appeals court wrote, and the Supreme Court affirmed it. Who says the issue is still open? Gazpacho 08:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Octave vs. Matlab a good example?[edit]

I found this Wikipedia article when trying to understand how come GNU Octave can imitate the syntax, behaviour and 'look and feel' of the commercial MATLAB (and openly admit doing so). I guess this case is the answer, but I'd be happy if someone knowledgeable confirms that... If so, it could be a prime example to write under the "Impact" section in the article. Omer B \ עומר ב (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This court case is only relevant in the United States. GNU Octave probably needs to respect the laws of many other countries in addition to US laws, or else a large number of people wouldn't be able to use the software. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20070714104754/http://www.gesmer.com/publications/article.php?ID=103 to http://www.gesmer.com/publications/article.php?ID=103

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]