What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the manner in which the Court took jurisdiction. The Court uses a variety of means whereby it undertakes to consider cases that it has been petitioned to review. The most important ones are the writ of certiorari, the writ of appeal, and for legacy cases the writ of error, appeal, and certification. For cases that fall into more than one category, identify the manner in which the court takes jurisdiction on the basis of the writ. For example, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), an original jurisdiction and a mandamus case, should be coded as mandamus rather than original jurisdiction due to the nature of the writ. Some legacy cases are "original" motions or requests for the Court to take jurisdiction but were heard or filed in another court. For example, Ex parte Matthew Addy S.S. & Commerce Corp., 256 U.S. 417 (1921) asked the Court to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal judge. Do not code these cases as "original" jurisdiction cases but rather on the basis of the writ.

Opinion:
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.
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.

Question: What is the manner in which the Court took jurisdiction?

Choices:
cert
appeal
bail
certification
docketing fee
rehearing or restored to calendar for reargument
injunction
mandamus
original
prohibition
stay
writ of error
writ of habeas corpus
unspecified, other

Answer: 0