Case Name: LOTUS DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. BORLAND INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1996-01-16
Citations: 516 U.S. 233
Docket Number: No. 94-2003
Parties: LOTUS DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. BORLAND INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Judges: Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 516
Pages: 233–234

Head Matter:
LOTUS DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. BORLAND INTERNATIONAL, INC.
No. 94-2003.
Argued January 8,1996
Decided January 16, 1996
Henry B. Gutman argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Kerry L. Konrad, Jeffrey E. Ostrow, Arthur R. Miller, Neal D. Goldman, and Donald J. Rosenberg.
Gary L. Reback argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Michael Barclay, Susan A. Creighton, and Katherine L. Parks.
Morton David Goldberg, June M. Besek, Davis O. Carson, and Jesse M. Feder filed a brief for Digital Equipment Corp. et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for Altai, Inc., by Susan Gertrude Braden; for the American Committee for Interoperable Systems et al. by Peter M. C. Choy and Paul Goldstein; for Computer Scientists by Ron Kilgard and Karl M. Tilleman; for the League for Programming Freedom by Eben Moglen and Pamela S. Karlan; for the Software Forum by Diane Marie O’Malley; for the Software Industry Coalition et al. by Thomas F. Villeneuve; for the Software Protection Committee of the Minnesota Intellectual Property Law Association by Steven W. Lundberg, Daniel J. Kluth, and Rudolph P. Hofmann, Jr.; for Copyright Law Professors by Pamela Samuelson; and for Peter S. Menell et al. by Mr. Menell, pro se.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the American Intellectual Property Law Association by Don W. Martens, Baila H. Celedonia, and Charles L. Gholz; for Economics Professors and Scholars by Joshua R. Floum; for Users Groups by Rex S. Heinke; and for Howard C. Anawalt, pro se.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.