EU Court Rules APIs, Programming Languages Not Copyrightable

itwbennett writes "The European Court of Justice ruled on Wednesday that the functionality of a computer program and the programming language it is written in cannot be protected by copyright. In its ruling on a case brought by SAS Institute against World Programming Limited (WPL), the court said that 'the purchaser of a license for a program is entitled, as a rule, to observe, study or test its functioning so as to determine the ideas and principles which underlie that program.'"

Comments

Strangely Relevant to Oracle vs. Google?

[Jahava]

This seems strangely relevant to the Oracle vs. Google case that's going on right now over Android and its usage of Java APIs. Does anyone know how much of a coincidence this EU court ruling is, that it occurs in such close proximity to its US analogue?

Re:Strangely Relevant to Oracle vs. Google?

[Darinbob]

And the US Trade Representative would likely put the EU countries on the watchlist of states that need to improve IP legislation...

Re:Strangely Relevant to Oracle vs. Google?

[muon-catalyzed]

Isn't this different? Google recreated/copied that language and still call it Java. To use car analogy Oracle Java(TM) is like Ford Mondeo(TM) and Google created their own unlicensed Mondeo and even named it Mondeo, Microsoft for example branded it J++ instead of Java. Google is using the word Java all over in their documentation. To me this look is more like trademark and design patent (Java syntax) problem then a copyright issue.

Re:Strangely Relevant to Oracle vs. Google?

[Forever Wondering]

Isn't this different? Google recreated/copied that language and still call it Java. To use car analogy Oracle Java(TM) is like Ford Mondeo(TM) and Google created their own unlicensed Mondeo and even named it Mondeo, Microsoft for example branded it J++ instead of Java. Google is using the word Java all over in their documentation. To me this look is more like trademark and design patent (Java syntax) problem then a copyright issue.

This ruling says that Google was within its rights to reverse engineer Java and create Dalvik (the VM). While you're correct about the possible trademark angle, trademarks are a funny thing.

For one, "java" is a slang term for coffee. This was true before the language. That's why the java logo is a steaming cup of coffee. Thus, because it's a common term, it may not be eligible to be trademarked.

Unlike patents [where you may selectively pursue infringers as you choose without losing any rights], trademarks must be vigorously enforced. You must take legal action against just about anybody using the trademark improperly.

If you don't, you lose the right to the trademark (e.g. Kleenex for tissue, Thermos vs vacuum bottle, Sanka for decaf coffee). All these trademarks/brands allowed a usage (and it only takes one) in a generic way and lost the right to the trademark. That's why aspirin is a trademark [of Bayer Pharmaceuticals] in Europe, but in the U.S., it's a generic term for a pain reliever that any manufacturer may use.

I suspect that Sun/Oracle has been too loose about this and we'll be able to strip them of their trademark readily enough.

Re:Strangely Relevant to Oracle vs. Google?

[TaoPhoenix]

Good, someone else noticed this, and I believe it cannot be an accident. I cannot quite tell if the Euro judges accelerated a timeline to get their ruling in first, but the 21st century is quickly becoming the "IP battleground" and this looks like almost an Amicus Curiae from "another jurisdiction".

Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye

[icebike]

Interesting that computer "the format of data files" are not copyrightable!

"the Court holds that neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression. Accordingly, they do not enjoy copyright protection."

Very interesting.

The Format of the data file being non copyrightable is an excellent Idea. Most of the time the data in the file belongs to the user, and making the file format non-protected allows for data migration, whether by the user or a competitor's product. I've always maintained that user data belongs to the user.

The wording "the functionality of a computer program" may not be copyrighted pretty much says you can't copyright what your program does, but you may be able to copyright the actual code. This too allows migration, and prevents the "monopoly of ideas", and that might be what they wanted to protect.

My only worry is that wording "functionality of a computer program" is wide open to interpretation, and could be used to ban clones. But The court address this as follows:

In that context, the Court states that if a third party were to procure the part of the source code or object code relating to the programming language or to the format of data files used in a computer program, and if that party were to create, with the aid of that code, similar elements in its own computer program, that conduct would be liable to be prohibited by the author of the program. In the present case, it is apparent from the explanations of the national court that WPL did not have access to the source code of SAS Institute’s program and did not carry out any decompilation of the object code of that program. It was only by means of observing, studying and testing the behaviour of SAS Institute’s program that WPL reproduced the functionality of that program by using the same programming language and the same format of data files.

So if you simply write a program that produces the same output of some proprietary program, that is perfectly permissible. But If you had access to the proprietary source code and used any of that code you were liable for copyright infringement.

This pretty much sounds the death knell for applications that attempt to lock you in. They might not help you migrate, but they can't use copyright laws to prevent the development of competing products.

But rounded corners? Still protected?

Re:Let's design a programming language...

[Anonymous Coward]

Creating something that's not copyrightable does not remove the copyright of the original work.
It's just like how you couldn't copy a song and put the copy in the public domain, because doing so would be an act of infringement.

You might conceivably create such a language, but the language wouldn't be protected. It implies that a programming language isn't necessarily "allowed" just because it might exist.

Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye

[Anonymous Coward]

"If I read this correctly it is possible for European software developers to use competitors file formats, which does not seem to be the case for American developers."

Yes and they have also the right to use a working health insurance and pension plan.
OTOH, if one more phone company sues another one in Germany, nobody will be able to use a phone anymore.

SAS is running scared

[Thatmushroom]

WPS (the SAS-compatible software produced by WPL) is a pretty darned good SAS clone for a fraction of the cost. I'm positive that they thought suing was a good business decision, even if they knew they didn't have a leg to stand on. The impact of WPL's existence is going to hurt their bottom line much more than what they had to pay their legal team. I don't have anything in the fight (other than being a user of both), I'm just happy to see something that'll either make SAS drop the price, or that we've found a good replacement.