The clerk’s memo, which discussed the case for Justice Stevens’ information notwithstanding the recommendation that he disqualify himself, contained interesting commentary. Perhaps the papers of Justices Scalia and Ginsburg, if they are made public, will disclose the voting on the merits. because of his interest in the subject matter, but then voted against reversal.
One can speculate that Justice Breyer may have supported cert. Unfortunately, the cover sheet does not indicate how each Justice voted on the merits-that is, how a 5-3 vote in support of cert. is granted if four Justices vote in favor). Ginsburg had voted “J-3,” that is, she would join in favor of cert. The cover sheet for the case file indicates that Justice Stevens was “out,” that Justices Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Ginsburg, and Breyer had voted in favor of cert., and Justices Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas voted against cert. As stated in a memo from an unidentified clerk, “In light of your policy of disqualifying yourself from cases in which IBM is a party, my recommendation is that you DISQUALIFY.” IBM had purchased Lotus in early 1995, and Justice Stevens appeared to have owned IBM stock. Justice Stevens’ files confirm the reason Justice Stevens recused himself. Soon thereafter, the Court issued a short per curiam decision, stating that the First Circuit’s judgment was affirmed by an equally divided court, and that Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1995 and heard oral arguments in 1996. The First Circuit ruled in 1994 that Borland did not infringe Lotus’ copyright when it copied the Lotus 1-2-3 command structure in its competing spreadsheet program because the command structure was an unprotectable method of operation under 17 U.S.C. Universal (“ Betamax”) decision, revealed by Justice Thurgood Marshall’s files, they do increase our knowledge about Lotus v. (See here for a blog post on Justice Stevens’ important decisions relating to information technology.) While the papers to do not provide additional information about Justice Stevens’ pivotal role in the shaping of the Sony v.
Justice Stevens (1920-2019) left his papers to the Library of Congress, which opened them to the public in May 2023. The recently released files of the late Associate Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens reveal interesting details concerning some of the Court’s significant copyright decisions, but leave important questions unanswered. Wed, Jun 21st 2023 03:40pm - Jonathan Band
0 kommentar(er)
