UK Court Rules That Software Functionality Is Not Subject To Copyright

from the good-judgment dept

Yesterday, Mike wrote about some worrying indications that the US Appeals Court may be considering overturning a ruling that APIs aren't covered by copyright. Happily, over in Europe, there's better news. The long-running battle between SAS and World Programming Limited (WPL) over the more general issue of whether copyright covers software functionality has now been settled by the UK Court of Appeal in favor of WPL. Here's a good report on the judgment from Out-law.com:

The Court confirmed that the way computer programs operate is not copyrightable. This is because computer program functionality is not "a form of expression" and therefore does not qualify for protection it said, ruling on a dispute involving rival software developers SAS Institute (SAS) and World Programming Limited (WPL).

"The ruling means that it will now be very difficult for software developers to challenge a competitor's software with identical functionality unless the underlying code for their software has been copied," intellectual property law expert Indradeep Bhattacharya of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, said. "Even the general design, program interfaces and non coding structural elements of software are not protected by copyright. It is also not an infringement to take the ideas behind a computer program from its accompanying documents such as user manuals and technical specifications, though copying non technical descriptions would still be an infringement."

As that indicates, this is a strong affirmation that reverse-engineering software is legal, provided the code itself is not copied. It confirms an earlier decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union, whose opinion had been sought by the original UK judge that heard the SAS case. This multi-layered consideration of the key issues by different courts means that the question is pretty much settled across Europe.

However, one other part of the ruling by the UK Court of Appeal may offer a way for software companies to combat reverse engineering. The licensing agreement from SAS had not made it clear that the software could only be used by one person; this allowed others to study and test SAS's software with the aim of reverse-engineering its functions. Out-law.com points out how software companies can make this harder in future:

"In order to try to limit who can access learning or development editions of software products, companies may want to think about restricting who is the 'lawful user' of their software," Bhattacharya said. "This can be done by entering into the licence with individual users rather than the company. Doing this would help restrict the ability of rivals to have dedicated teams of people observing, studying and testing your software to develop alternative programs."

This shows once again how contracts can be used to add restrictions beyond what copyright law dictates. It will be interesting to see if software companies try to adopt this approach, and what effect it has. Meanwhile, we can be grateful for the UK Court of Appeal's sensible ruling that will allow competition and innovation to flourish, and we must hope that the US Appeals Court follows suit.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: api, copyright, functionality, software, uk
Companies: sas, wpl

EU Advocate General: 'Functionalities Of A Computer Program Cannot Be Protected By Copyright'

from the but-what-about-patents? dept

Back in September, Techdirt wrote about an important case that had been passed up to the European Court of Justice. It raised some key questions about creating software that was interoperable with an existing program – whether, for example, the features of the latter were in some sense copyrightable.

Although the full Court decision won't be out until next year, one of the Court of Justice's Advocates General (there are eight of them, "to present opinions on the cases brought before the Court") has published his views on the case [pdf]:

In the first place, with regard to the functionality of a computer program, the Advocate General defines it as the set of possibilities offered by a computer system – in other words, the service which the user expects from it.

Starting from that premiss, the Advocate General considers that the functionalities of a computer program are not eligible, as such, for copyright protection. The functionalities of a computer program are in fact dictated by a specific and limited purpose. In this, they are similar to ideas. That is why there may be a number of computer programs offering the same functionalities.

That seems like common sense: the functionality of a program is just something that it can do, which is itself just an idea. The Advocate General then goes on to make a very important point:

if it were accepted that a functionality of a computer program can be protected as such, that would amount to making it possible to monopolise ideas, to the detriment of technological progress and industrial development.

The thing is, exactly the same could be said about software patents too. One of the problems with them is that they often concern basic programming techniques, and as such give the patent holder a monopoly on those key ideas. It's why copyright – which protects the implementation of ideas – is more appropriate than patents, since it does not block alternative ways of creating the same effect. It's also why markets like smartphones have turned into impenetrable patent thickets.

This is not the final judgment of the European Court of Justice, although the Advocate General's opinion does carry considerable weight. Moreover, even the European Court of Justice does not decide the case definitively, but merely offers its interpretation of European law. It is ultimately down to the national court in the UK to use that ruling to make its own judgment. So there's still a long way to go before this case and the issues that it raises are settled. But it's definitely off to a good start with this opinion: had the Advocate General opined differently, creating interoperable programs in Europe would have started to look a much more perilous – and expensive – undertaking.

It's also worth noting that there is a very similar case going through the courts in the US: Oracle has accused Google of infringing on its Java copyrights in much the same way that SAS accused WPL in Europe. It will be interesting to see whether the US judge agrees with the Advocate General's analysis.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: copyright, eu, functionality, ideas, software
Companies: sas, world programming

Spanish Court Dismisses Complaint From Nintendo Against Counterfiet DS Cartridges, Since They Add Functionality

from the getting-it-right dept

It seems that Spain is a country that is pretty consistently figuring out that we shouldn't just throw out all other rights the second "piracy" is shouted by the entertainment industry. We've noted recently that the country hasn't just rejected three strikes and declared broadband a basic right, but has also ruled, repeatedly, that personal file sharing is legal. And now, it even has judges who realize that "anti-circumvention" laws should have limits as well.

As you probably know, one of the key things that the entertainment industry has pushed for throughout the world is "anti-circumvention" clauses in copyright law. In the US we have this in the DMCA and it's a total mess. The law basically says that any attempt to circumvent (or to make or sell a tool to circumvent) DRM on a digital work is a violation of the copyright law -- even if making a copy of the content in question wouldn't violate copyright law.

Spanish copyright law includes an anti-circumvention clause, but as Leo Martins alerts us, a judge in Salamanca, Spain has taken a much more nuanced view of it in a case pitting Nintendo against Grupo Movilquick, who produced alternative cartridges for Nintendo DS devices. The judge's ruling (translated from the original) appears to find that the alternative cartridges do, in fact, circumvent Nintendo's DRM and can be used for "pirating" games, but also extend the utility of the devices for perfectly legal purposes. For that reason, the judge dismissed the lawsuit (translation from the original) noting that it doesn't make sense that the law would be intended to say that only Nintendo can expand the functionality of its devices, and the fact that Nintendo doesn't offer similar functionality shouldn't preclude others from doing so. There are areas where Nintendo can still bring a lawsuit, such as for patent and trademark issues, but the judge notes those should be dealt with in a civil court.

Filed Under: anti-circumvention, competition, copyright, counterfeit cartridges, functionality, nintendo ds, spain
Companies: grupo movilquick, nintendo