Slashdot Mirror
EU Court Adviser Says Software Ideas Can't Be Copyrighted
bhagwad writes "The EU continues to ooze common sense as a court insists that software functions themselves cannot be copyrighted. Drawing a box or moving cursor are examples. To quote: 'If it were accepted that a functionality of a computer program can be protected as such, that would amount to making it possible to monopolize ideas, to the detriment of technological progress and industrial development.'" Note that this is a "non-binding opinion by Yves Bot, an advocate-general at the Luxembourg-based EU Court of Justice,"
and that the court "will rule on the case next year."
Can you point out to those folks on the other side of the Atlantic that software patents stiffle invention and innovation.
Thanks.
Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.
Rectangles with rounded corners are still safe.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
" software functions themselves cannot be copyrighted"
When it says "software functions", it doesn't mean functions, it means features, eg. click button to update the table. It's basically confirming that copyright can't be used in the same way as patents, that's why we have patents in the first place [as brain-damaged as they may be].
I think you're thinking about patenting software. Copyright is a different thing. Generally you patent a device. Copyright is for protecting written information.
There are so many lawsuits flying around over patents, copyrights and wishful thinking that it's no wonder we are in recession. It doesn't matter what you want to do, you are going to get sued by someone. So why bother? People don't.
Channel Steve Jobs much?
When you copyright your software, you copyright your specific implementation of the code. If someone comes along and writes software that performs the same function but without infringing on your copyright, you are facing competition.
SAS asserted that they were the subject of copyright violation, and attempted to shut down a competitor that created an independent implementation.
The EU already doesn't allow software patents anyway (and those it has allowed are unenforceable).
Yes, it does. Or rather, it does in the same exact way as the US allows software patents... and US counterparts for the ones that are unenforceable are also unenforceable here.
In both Europe and the US, software on its own (or 'per se') is unpatentable, but a machine that executes software is patent eligible. Similarly, a method performed by a machine executing software is also patent eligible. Basically, the EPO had a parallel decision to the Bilski decision here, with the same result - software is still patentable, provided it's tied to a machine.
There are Packers fans in Europe?
He's not saying that functions like
are not copyrightable. He's saying that the function, aka the generic software method, of drawing a box is not copyrightable. Nobody copied the CODE, which would be a copyright violation. They reimplemented the idea. This is just the equivalent of saying that you can still write books about kid wizards even though JK Rowling already did it. You can have spells that petrify people (that's would be a function, right?), but if you go as far as lifting entire passages (copying the actual code that comprises the function), THEN you're talking about a copyright violation.
Does the box have rounded corners?
You can't copyright a recipe but you can copyright a cookbook. Likewise you shouldn't be able to copyright a software design/function but you should be able to copyright a software implementation of that design/function.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
"Copyright is for protecting written information."
Copyright is for controlling the distribution of information. The only protection for information is duplication and distrubition.
Great Intellect...