The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

Software functionality not subject to copyright: EU court

WPL-vs-SAS case gets Court of Justice opinion

Ensure Ease of Recovery with Asigra’s Agentless Software

In a far-reaching decision for the software industry, the European Court of Justice has decided that the functionality of software – as distinct from the actual code – is not covered by copyright.

The decision concludes a long-running court case first brought by SAS against World Programming Limited (WPL).

WPL had gotten under SAS’s skin by buying a copy of its software and creating a feature by reading the description of the feature in the manual, and writing its own code.

SAS had attempted, in English courts, to get a finding that WPL had violated its copyright. In 2010, that led to a British High Court decision that copying the manuals violated copyright, and that WPL had violated its license agreement – but decided to refer the matter to the European Court to settle the copyright questions in light of EU intellectual property directives.

The court has decided that functionality, absent any viewing or copying of code, cannot be protected by copyright: “to accept that the functionality of a computer program can be protected by copyright would amount to making it possible to monopolise ideas, to the detriment of technological progress and industrial development,” the judgment states.

The court has also placed limits on the ways in which vendors can constrain customers under licensing agreements:

“[T]he owner of the copyright in a computer program may not prevent, by relying on the licensing agreement, the person who has obtained that licence from determining the ideas and principles which underlie all the elements of that program,” the court says (limited not by the EULA but by copyright law). ®

Agentless Backup is Not a Myth

Anonymous Coward

Speaking as a developer...

Three cheers for common sense! Now we just need someone to either tear the US Patent system to pieces or teach them what prior art means and we'll all be able to get back to creating things without living in fear of legal action because some bastard has managed to get a patent on the use of the letter 'k', the ability to display information on a screen, rounded corners, etc.

32
1

I sense an EU-US battle on the horizon

Bloke's right, though. A clean room implementation can't be subject to the copyright of the original code as it isn't...the original code.

23
1

oh if only...

If only such a ruling could be made when it comes to patents of ideas like swipe to unlock. Perhaps a whole bunch of patent fights could be brought to an end...

15
1

More from The Register

 breaking news
Number of cops abusing Police National Computer access on the rise
Only a telegram from the Queen can get you off it
 breaking news
NSA whistleblower to tech firms, Obama: 'Grow a pair!'
Ed Snowden: Email tracking grabs 'IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything'
 breaking news
Ecuador: All right, Julian, you CAN stay on our sofa - it's your human right
Minister and Wikileaker share cosy chat in tiny London flat
SCO vs. IBM battle resumes over ownership of Unix
Zombie lawsuit back and wants to suck the brains out of Linux
Google flings another £1m at online child sex abuse vid CRACKDOWN
See, see, we're trying, ad giant tells Daily Mail UK.gov
 breaking news
NSA PRISM-gate: Relax, GCHQ spooks 'keep us safe', says Cameron
Whatever they are up to, it's all above board, we're told
PRISM snitch claims NSA hacked Chinese targets since 2009
Snowden suddenly looks safer in Hong Kong after revelations
 breaking news
US chief spook: Look, we only want to spy on 6.66 BEELLLION of you
Americans assured they are not in the NSA's sights