EU Court Of Justice Says Software Functionality Is Not Subject To Copyright

from the good-ruling dept

We've been following the legal fight between SAS and World Programming Limited (WPL) for quite some time. If you don't recall, WPL essentially recreated some functionality of SAS's offering, not by copying the software itself or the source code, but basically by reading SAS's manuals about what its software did. The UK's High Court said this did not infringe, and the case got kicked up to the European Court of Justice (which has been pretty good on copyright issues lately). In the fall, the EU Advocates General recommended that the court make clear that software functionality is not subject to copyright, and it appears that's exactly what the court has now done.

In a relatively short ruling, the court points out that, while software itself may be covered by copyright, "the ideas and principles which underlie any element of a computer program, including those which underlie its interfaces, are not protected by copyright." Basically, the EUCJ properly recognized the difference between protecting the idea (not copyrightable) and the expression (copyrightable). The court points out that actual code can still be covered, but the features generated out of that code is a different story:
As the Advocate General states in point 57 of his Opinion, 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.
Also important in the discussion is whether or not the software maker could use a license agreement to effectively prohibit this. This is a question that courts have been dealing with for a while: can you effectively remove exceptions to copyright -- or can you effectively expand the power of copyright -- via an overly inclusive license agreement. Here, thankfully, the court rejects that idea:
Consequently, the 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 in the case where that person carries out acts which that licence permits him to perform and the acts of loading and running necessary for the use of the computer program, and on condition that that person does not infringe the exclusive rights of the owner in that program.

[....]

It must therefore be held that the copyright in a computer program cannot be infringed where, as in the present case, the lawful acquirer of the licence did not have access to the source code of the computer program to which that licence relates, but merely studied, observed and tested that program in order to reproduce its functionality in a second program.
It's always nice to see courts getting copyright rulings right (or, at least, mostly right). It's been much rarer in the US, but it seems like the EUCJ has really been thinking a lot more carefully about copyright law lately.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Mason Wheeler, May 2nd, 2012 @ 3:20pm

    That's good to hear, but...

    ...the real problem with copying functionality isn't copyright--this ruling here is just plain common sense, even in the US. The problem with copying functionality is that the functionality itself could be patented, and until we get *that* mess sorted out, this ruling is kinda meaningless.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    jilocasin, May 2nd, 2012 @ 4:00pm

    Tell that to Google.....

    Yes, software patents are an oxymoron (and the court that allowed them is run by... well you get the idea).

    But someone should really tell Oracle that copyright doesn't cover API/SSO/ideas behind the code.

    As for the lawyers, as Upton Sinclair has been quoted as saying;

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), May 2nd, 2012 @ 4:13pm

      Re: Tell that to Google.....

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

      Actually:

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when he believes his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2012 @ 4:39pm

    wait... don't I recall you suggesting it would be a bad idea to refer ACTA to the EUCJ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    abc gum, May 2nd, 2012 @ 5:34pm

    Rats!
    There goes my copyright upon the print function.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2012 @ 9:19pm

    Sadly, this does me no good in the States. I can think of one shoddily coded overpriced piece of audit management software in particular that I'd love to put to bed with an open source alternative.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), May 2nd, 2012 @ 11:03pm

    It seems Captain obvious is now in full residence at the EUCJ.

    Now if we can just get him into the USPTO and American courts the world might be a more saner place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 3rd, 2012 @ 2:02am

    'It seems Captain obvious is now in full residence at the EUCJ'

    if he is, he's got a hell of a lot more work to do before there is more than a shred of common sense used over copyright.
    as for the EUCJ, they need to step up to the plate and make sensible decisions that are then enforced in all EU countries. what is the point, as it is at the moment, in saying 'website blocking is not the EU option' and 'cutting internet access is not acceptable in the EU', then letting member countries (UK, France, Sweden etc) do exactly the opposite? having rules that are not followed or enforced is worse than having no rules in the first place!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), May 3rd, 2012 @ 10:53am

    A few thousand copyright/patent trolls died in despair today.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    samuel Andrews, May 5th, 2012 @ 9:21pm

    Spliting hairs?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This