Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Court Adviser Says Software Ideas Can't Be Copyrighted

Posted by timothy on from the perhaps-a-bot-but-not-robotic dept.

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."

13 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. Please let the Americans know this ... by Dark$ide · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Dear EU,

    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.

    1. Re:Please let the Americans know this ... by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Funny

      His name may make them a little suspicious.

    2. Re:Please let the Americans know this ... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dear EU,

      Can you point out to Slashdot moderators the difference between copyright and patents?

      Thanks

  2. Don't worry Apple by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

    Rectangles with rounded corners are still safe.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  3. Summary Clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    " 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].

  4. Intellectual Property is killing everything by kawabago · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Intellectual Property is killing everything by robot256 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think both out-of-control bankers and out-of-control IP squabbles are symptoms of the current attitude in society, or at least among MBAs, that money can be created out of nothing. It's financial alchemy: it appears to work at first, but only because they are siphoning money away from somewhere else in the process, hence the recession. Solve the underlying attitude problem, and we solve all the symptoms at once. How to do that, I have no idea.

  5. Re:How is this relevant? by Theaetetus · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:How Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    There are Packers fans in Europe?

  7. Important distinction for those who don't RTFA by SecurityGuy · · Score: 5, Informative

    He's not saying that functions like

    drawBox(args) {
        stuff...
    }

    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.

  8. Re:Finally! by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does the box have rounded corners?

  9. Re:Finally! by Comboman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  10. Re:Finally! by bky1701 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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...