Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Court Rules APIs, Programming Languages Not Copyrightable

Posted by samzenpus on from the free-code dept.

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.'"

55 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Yeah! by itsybitsy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  2. Let's design a programming language... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...in which every book, song, movie, etc. is part of the syntax of the language, thus making them all uncopyrightable.

    1. Re:Let's design a programming language... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Let's design a programming language... by Xtifr · · Score: 2

      You need to meet a minimum bar of creativity to qualify for copyright. For each keyword. Furthermore, something that's purely functional won't cut it either. So, the keywords in the language would have each be about sentence length, at a minimum (and that's pushing it), and not exactly describe what they do. At which point, yes, you might be able to copyright those "words", but you still wouldn't be able to copyright the language, and you'd have a language that nobody would want to use, let alone copy. Yay you. :)

    3. Re:Let's design a programming language... by captain_sweatpants · · Score: 3

      I can't speak about the other two, but Breaking bad is one of the greatest TV shows of all time.

  3. Strangely Relevant to Oracle vs. Google? by Jahava · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Strangely Relevant to Oracle vs. Google? by luther349 · · Score: 2

      the judge never said to the jury that api where copyright in google vs oracle. that was just a crappy headline that we seem to always get now. but it does not mater how that case goes right now win or lose you know its going to a higher court.

    2. Re:Strangely Relevant to Oracle vs. Google? by icebike · · Score: 2

      I doubt this will enter into it at all, because that has gone to Jury. There is always the Appeal.

      Oracle was relying on the ruling that THIS ruling struck down to bolster its case that API interfaces were protected.
      Now that underpinning is gone, but perhaps too late for this round.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Strangely Relevant to Oracle vs. Google? by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    4. Re:Strangely Relevant to Oracle vs. Google? by Forever+Wondering · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Like a good neighbor, fsck is there ...
    5. Re:Strangely Relevant to Oracle vs. Google? by rossz · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      Quite the opposite. The less the term/phrase describes the product, the stronger the trademark. Thus, Apple is an excellent name for a computer company, but would probably be rejected if a fruit company tried to use it as a trademark. Microsoft should have been considered a weak trademark, but they got lucky and have the money to fight any attempts to revoke it.

      Since Java and coffee really don't have anything to do with computing (other than it being the primary component of geek blood), it's a pretty strong trademark.

      IANAL, but got that information from an article written by a trademark lawyer years ago.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    6. Re:Strangely Relevant to Oracle vs. Google? by Rennt · · Score: 3, Informative

      Minor niggle - Google did not call their implementation Java. They have been quite consistent in their message that it is NOT Java. This is because Java is protected by trademark, and Sun required to you implement the full Java specification before allowing you to call your implementation Java.

    7. Re:Strangely Relevant to Oracle vs. Google? by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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".

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    8. Re:Strangely Relevant to Oracle vs. Google? by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

      100% coincidence.

      Also the judge has instructed the jury to deliberate assuming that the structure, sequence and organisation of the API is copyrightable; They're to determine given if the APIs are sufficiently similar, comparing all 166 Java packages not just the 33 accused,)and if so, if Google has infringed and whether or not they're use is allowed under fair use.

      The Judge has not said that APIs can be copyrighted. He reserves that decision for himself, and will only be forced to make such a decision if the jury finds that Google has infringed (assuming the SSO of an API is copyrightable). Since the jury is already deliberating in the Oracle v Google case no new evidence will be presented to them. Although US copyright laws are different than EU law, the Judge knows that his decision could have huge impacts on the software market.

      I like Judge Alsup, he's smart. He only has to decide if Google's found to be infringing... Furthermore I think he's begun to understand the absurdity of Oracles claims:

      Judge: Question about specification. Your description made it sound like a black box with something inside. You have input on that side and output on that side, and the spec says what the inputs gotta be, and the outputs gotta be, and the implementation is what's in the black box.

      Owen Astrachan: That is a very good explanation. I like that explanation.

      [Judge smiles]

      - Reported Transcript

      In the black box analogy the API would be like Google and Oracle both labeling their volume knobs the same name and making clockwise rotation increase the volume... It sounds intuitive that if Google's black box has all the same placement and functions and labels as an Oracle box that they coppied the SSO of the Interface (API) -- However, they must have done so in order to provide interoperability, and courts have made exceptions for such use in the past. As long as the operation manual (code comments) are sufficiently dissimilar I can't see where Oracle has a copyright case. Their patent case is another story.

      This EU ruling is interesting to me as a software developer... My fellow game devs are dispersed globally. In the near future we'll be selecting a home base of operations. If the APIs are found copyrightable in the US, but not EU, we may opt to have our base of operations outside the US. (we may do so any way for patent concern reasons -- Fix the damn copyright and patent system USA, it's HURTING your business)

    9. Re:Strangely Relevant to Oracle vs. Google? by Engeekneer · · Score: 2

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

      That would not necessarily be a bad thing. When almost all countries of the world are on the list, the list loses its meaning.

  4. Read the decision by msobkow · · Score: 5, Informative

    Read what the decision actually says. The source code and object code which implement a system are covered by copyright, but the interfaces and algorithms implemented by that source code are not.

    It's a fine distinction, but it essentially says that if you can reverse engineer the requirements of an API by observing it's behaviour, you are free to re-implement that functionality. i.e. You have to use so-called "clean-room" techniques, where the team that did the functional analysis of the APIs to write the specs have absolutely nothing else to do with the team that writes the implementation.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Read the decision by msobkow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Were this applied to the Oracle-Google Java case, I think this basically says the EU would rule in Google's favour.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    2. Re:Read the decision by wiredlogic · · Score: 2

      You don't have to use clean-room reverse engineering. You can peer into the implementation however you choose so long as you respect the copyright with original code in the reimplementation (and any contractual obligations).

      What Compaq did to RE the IBM PC BIOS was an overly cautious CYA move to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit from IBM. It is often forgotten that IBM provided a technical reference manual with full schematics and complete assembly listings for the BIOS. Compaq felt the need to prove that they produced their work from an independent spec. to avoid accusations of copying that documentation.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    3. Re:Read the decision by msobkow · · Score: 2

      I wasn't clear in what I meant.

      The Java library source Google used is not based on the official Java source, but the Apache re-creation of the APIs. The ruling seems to make it clear that such a rewrite is not subject to copyright infringement claims in the EU.

      I had commented to that effect afterwards, but even then I didn't explain my thinking.

      You are correct -- the ruling doesn't mandate clean room engineering, and specifically says that referencing manuals for the APIs is allowed. What I meant is that in the Google-Oracle case, there is a documented development history showing the source was a rewrite based on specs without copying the original code of Sun/Oracle's implementation.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    4. Re:Read the decision by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      It's a fine distinction, but it essentially says that if you can reverse engineer the requirements of an API by observing it's behaviour, you are free to re-implement that functionality. i.e. You have to use so-called "clean-room" techniques, where the team that did the functional analysis of the APIs to write the specs have absolutely nothing else to do with the team that writes the implementation.

      Heh, I like how If I take the API specs and create my own implementation, I'm guilty until proven innocent of infringment, and surely guilty unless I used a clean room technique.

      Except that's just wrong! I can think of one very important instance: Stallman's part in the Lisp Machines, Inc. and Symbolics debacle over Lisp. Symbolics Lisp shared code with MIT Lisp, but Symbolics didn't want their improvements used by the competition. Stallman didn't use a clean room, but he re-implemented feature per feature what Symbolics added.

      From Stallman's side of the story:

      So Symbolics came up with a plan. They said to the lab, “We will continue making our changes to the system available for you to use, but you can't put it into the MIT Lisp machine system. Instead, we'll give you access to Symbolics' Lisp machine system, and you can run it, but that's all you can do.”

      This, in effect, meant that they demanded that we had to choose a side, and use either the MIT version of the system or the Symbolics version. Whichever choice we made determined which system our improvements went to. If we worked on and improved the Symbolics version, we would be supporting Symbolics alone. If we used and improved the MIT version of the system, we would be doing work available to both companies, but Symbolics saw that we would be supporting [Lisp Machines Inc.] because we would be helping them continue to exist. So we were not allowed to be neutral anymore.

      Up until that point, I hadn't taken the side of either company, although it made me miserable to see what had happened to our community and the software. But now, Symbolics had forced the issue. So, in an effort to help keep Lisp Machines Inc. going — I began duplicating all of the improvements Symbolics had made to the Lisp machine system. I wrote the equivalent improvements again myself (i.e., the code was my own).

      After a while, I came to the conclusion that it would be best if I didn't even look at their code. When they made a beta announcement that gave the release notes, I would see what the features were and then implement them. By the time they had a real release, I did too.

      In this way, for two years, I prevented them from wiping out Lisp Machines Incorporated, and the two companies went on. But, I didn't want to spend years and years punishing someone, just thwarting an evil deed. I figured they had been punished pretty thoroughly because they were stuck with competition that was not leaving or going to disappear.

      Emphasis mine. Note that he had access, and did look at their code... It was not a full clean room operation, and LMI used Stallman's contributions. Symbolics threatened lawsuits -- I wish they had filed them; It may have cleared this API SSO crap up a lot sooner, and we'd have a work around for them by now even if they were copyrightable. The above instance had a large part to play in the creation of the GPL, which Java is now licensed under.

      So, Unless I have TWO SEPARATE MINDS AND BODIES, then there is no way I -- a single software developer and entrepreneur -- could EVER create a "clean room" implementation as you've defined it. That's anti-competitive and unconstitutional IMO.

  5. Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye by erroneus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's kind of always been like this though. Compatibility and data interchange have always been protected. Without that protection, people would be unable to move their data into other formats and legally, a vendor could kill a customer's access to their own data by discontinuing their software. Those things just can't be allowed.

    What's "new" here is that it has been challenged in court and has been affirmed.

    Now what interferes with some of that are software patents...

  6. This is no news ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 5, Informative

    European court rules ....
    Sorry, this is law
    A court is not "ruling" what is "law".
    In europe we have laws that define what is "the case" what is "right" or what is "wrong" ...
    I don't know the background, but going to court and asking for a rule if APIs are copyrightable is so plain stupid it is beyond believe. The law explicitly states: APIs or SQL data definition statements are ... surprise surprise: not copyrightable

    Seems half of the world does not understand how a court works. There is a law. There is a subject. And the judge decides if the subject is afflicted by the law.

    Pretty simple.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    1. Re:This is no news ... by s2jcpete · · Score: 2

      Laws are open to interpretation which lead to precedents which found the basis for future interpretations. Which half did you belong to?

    2. Re:This is no news ... by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 2

      Where is this "explicitly stated?"

    3. Re:This is no news ... by dkf · · Score: 3, Informative

      for the US, and Canada, the EU, ...

      Strictly, in the EU it depends where you are. In most member states, the legal system is such that decisions are supposed to be just taken on the laws as written and the facts of the case, though they may find legal arguments made elsewhere persuasive (after all, a good piece of jurisprudence is exactly that everywhere). Some member states (the UK and Ireland) have the same common law system as you see in the US, so decisions of higher courts are totally binding. The net effect is pretty similar wherever you are though; interfaces and algorithms are not copyrightable anywhere in the EU (not unless some bunch of scumbag politicians creates an explicit statute to change that, but we'll worry about that problem if it happens).

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  7. Oh you're so clever... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

    What, you think being clever will help you evade the law? If the people who drafted the law were not smart enough to close your loophole, you do not get to exploit it -- unless you are rich or a corporation.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  8. Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye by micheas · · Score: 2

    The biggest thing that I can think of is that the later versions of PSD formats are not freely licensed, which is why they are not in the gimp.

    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.

    --
    Work bio at MMWD
  9. Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  10. 9 lines were copied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Part of Oracle's complaint is that some of the source code is copied.

    A grand total of 9 lines were copied, and as soon as they were identified they were removed from the Android sources. Furthermore, that RangeCheck function was so trivial that any Java beginner could have written it (this was stated in court testimony), so Oracle would get no substantive damages even if the jury denied the fair use defence for those 9 lines.

    So yes, I have to agree with the parent that Oracle would lose in EU. They are likely to lose the copyright suit even in California.

  11. Re:Interesting. by Local+ID10T · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can convert any stream of bits into an API specification.

    0

    Admittedly it's not a very long stream, but go ahead.

    Ok... here goes:

    !1

    Whew.. that was rough.

    --
    "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
  12. Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye by larry+bagina · · Score: 2

    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.

    In the US, they can use patents. Consider the MICROS~1 extended filename patent for FAT.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  13. Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye by Darinbob · · Score: 2

    It is not necessarily like this everywhere. Sure it's common sense, but the DMCA in the US forbids "reverse engineering" which can limit a lot of observing, studying, or testing of the program's execution. In this particular case, a program has been reverse engineered and emulated by another program and it did this without seeing or copying the original source code. Ie, a clean room implementation.

  14. Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye by Darinbob · · Score: 2

    Actually, I should clarify. "Reverse engineering" means a lot of things, including disassembly. The court would forbid the disassembly here, however reverse engineering by duplicating observed functionality is ok.

    There's a lot in between those two extremes though. Ie, you can reverse engineer by observing that the machine or operating systems is doing; what device registers it writes to, what library functions it it calling, what system calls it makes.

  15. Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye by afidel · · Score: 2

    I'm not sure what the DMCA would have to do with it as PSD isn't access control software protecting a third parties copyrighted work.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  16. Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye by afidel · · Score: 2

    No, what the DMCA doesn't allow is the dissemination of tools derived from knowledge gained by reverse engineering an effective copyright control mechanism and there are a few significant exceptions like academic works and for interoperability.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  17. Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye by chrismcb · · Score: 2

    What's "new" here is that it has been challenged in court and has been affirmed.

    Isn't this just the same as saying you can't copyright the "look and feel?" I'm pretty sure that went through the court system a quarter century ago.

  18. Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye by White+Flame · · Score: 5, Informative

    but the DMCA in the US forbids "reverse engineering"

    No, it does not. The DMCA prohibits "Circumvention of Technological Protection Measures", specifically circumvention of measures to access copyrighted materials, and circumvention of measures to copy copyrighted materials. It prohibits the act of circumvention as well as distribution of circumvention tools.

    Reverse engineering is specifically *protected* in the DMCA, exempted from its prohibition, allowing you to circumvent access restrictions, if you need to achieve interoperability and the software is "lawfully obtained".

  19. Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Funny

    But rounded corners? Still protected?

    It so happened that this morning when I woke up, I inspected the four corners of my mattress.

    Holy Smithereens !!!

    All the four corners of my mattress are round !

    Am I gonna be sued now?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  20. SAS is running scared by Thatmushroom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    You zap the moderators with a wand of humor! The moderators resist!
    1. Re:SAS is running scared by germansausage · · Score: 2

      Here they have a news crawler saying that the Bank of Canada is going to lower interests or something, but they abbreviate it BOC and I always wonder why the Blue Oyster Cult is setting financial policy.

    2. Re:SAS is running scared by Lando · · Score: 2

      Oh, German courts aren't like US courts? I mean in the US it wouldn't be about winning against the opponent, it's about costing them so much in legal fees that they go out of business.

      --
      /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
  21. Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye by ppanon · · Score: 3, Informative

    From your lips to the Oracle Jury's ears....

    To the Google-Oracle judge's ears. The jury have been specifically instructed to assume that APIs are copyrightable.

    That said, Jonathan Schwartz' testimony on day 9 was seriously damaging to Oracle's case. He established a sound basis for the argument that Java APIs had been officially released for use without a licence, and that Sun had claimed a licence was only necessary to obtain the JCK to certify Java compatibility. STo the best of my knowledge, Sun didn't go bankrupt but were instead bought by Oracle, so those statements should still be in force. I'm thinking there might be opportunity for some serious class action lawsuits for breach of contract from Java developers against Oracle using that testimony if Oracle pursue the matter of copyrighting and demanding licences for the APIs. Not to mention massive flight of developers from use of the language and collapse of the Java business as developers decide not to pray that Oracle doesn't alter the deal further.

    So there's reasonable hope that we might get a double win: a non-infringement ruling from the jury and a legal ruling against API copyrightability from the judge.

    --
    Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  22. Re:Does this really invalidate parts of the DMCA? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

    DMCA is an American law. Why would a court decision in EU affect it?

  23. Re:Important unanswered question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Software licenses or EULA cannot take away rights granted by law. This is in the EU.
    Now in the US its a whole other can of worms.

  24. Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye by Sique · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It would be sufficient to legally download and install a single instance of the JRE to obtain a license according to the court. The defendant in the case didn't buy a license to the API either, just installed a single instance of SAS' program which he obtained legally.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  25. "to be" by Frans+Faase · · Score: 2

    Yes, almost like claiming that you have violated the copyrights by copying the words "to be" from the works of Shakespear.

  26. Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye by wvmarle · · Score: 2

    But rounded corners? Still protected?

    That has never been a copyright issue.

    These "rounded corners" can be protected in very specific situations, notably design patents. You're probably referring to Apple vs Samsung and cases like that. When you create a design (outlook) for a device then you may patent that. This device can be anything: mobile phones, laptops, car, machinery, whatever. It means that while that patent is valid no-one is allowed to make a lookalike device.

    So if you make a phone that looks exactly like an iPhone, Apple may prevent you from selling it based on their design patent. Now how same this "looks exactly like" should be, that's up to the courts, and there is definitely no clear borderline. And it's definitely more than just "rounded corners".

    Another place where this "rounded corners" issue appears is in trademarks and branding. I'm sure the Coca Cola bottle design with it's narrow waist is well protected, by design patents and/or by trademarking. After all this design is very important for Coca Cola as even from a km distance many people will instantly recognise it's shape, and know the product it belongs to. Now you may be allowed to make a bottle with a narrow waist, but to get away with it you have to make it obviously different.

  27. wow by fireylord · · Score: 2

    There's a whole 'other' market out there for mattresses that are...

  28. Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2

    '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.'"

    Google is not a purchaser of a license for JME, so this ruling is irrelevant to the jury for that case, sorry.

    Sure, but I suppose the definition of 'purchaser' in this context needs to be clarified. After all if you download a 'free' piece of software, then are you 'buying' a piece of software for 0€? This is important, since Java can freely be downloaded in compiled or source form, with the latter under GPL.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  29. Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye by Splab · · Score: 2

    Why would a European court rule on patentability of software when no software in Europe can be patented?

  30. Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye by White+Flame · · Score: 2

    If this is true, then why is libdvdcss still not able to be incorporated in Linux distributions originating from the US?

    It is a tool for circumventing access controls to copyrighted materials, thus prohibited. The reverse engineering is allowed, and access controls can be bypassed to perform that step, but you still can't distribute tools that perform the bypass.

    And despite what the authoritarians said in their usual spiel of 'the innocent have nothing to fear'...

    I agree with you there. While the DMCA definitely brings a chilling effect and I'd support its repeal, it is too often misrepresented in conversation. The actual text of the bill is quite readable, and some "geeky" things are actually exempted or protected.

  31. Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye by dzfoo · · Score: 2

    Actually, it didn't. If you are referring to Apple vs. Microsoft in the 1980s, then that wasn't the reason Apple lost--although it is popular to say so.

    Apple granted Microsoft a license to use certain elements of the UI, and Microsoft exploited this license by using such elements in their own GUI system.

    Apple lost some of their claims because apparently the license was broad enough to cover most anything. Note that they did win some copyright claims.

                    -dZ.

    --
    Carol vs. Ghost
    ...Can you save Christmas?
  32. No, not the interoperability clause by Sloppy · · Score: 2

    It would be legal under DMCA because bypassing whatever access controls are theoretically in PSD (AFAIK there aren't any, but let's hypothesize that there were) wouldn't be circumvention. DMCA defines circumvention in a certain way, an important part of that definition being "without the authority of the copyright holder," and the copyright holder it's talking about there, isn't Adobe; it's the copyright holder for whoever created the imagery that is in the PSD.

    If PSDs contained DRM (false, but again, let's pretend they did), and you created a PSD containing your hand-drawn picture, you simply need to "authorize" the world to defeat the DRM, and then DMCA will allow anyone to defeat the PSD's DRM, anyone to create and traffic in tools that defeat the PSD's DRM, etc. These DRM-breaking acts wouldn't be exempted; they would simply not be covered in the first place. Authorization by the copyright holder removes DMCA.

    Better yet, authorize everyone in the world except Adobe and their customers. Make Adobe use the interoperability clause in their defense when you're suing them over their infringement tool.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  33. Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye by David+Chappell · · Score: 2

    It wouldn't. It ruled on copyrightability.

  34. Re:It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Ye by WizADSL · · Score: 2

    '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.'"

    Google is not a purchaser of a license for JME, so this ruling is irrelevant to the jury for that case, sorry.

    Sure, but I suppose the definition of 'purchaser' in this context needs to be clarified. After all if you download a 'free' piece of software, then are you 'buying' a piece of software for 0€? This is important, since Java can freely be downloaded in compiled or source form, with the latter under GPL.

    It seems like it should be legal, if I buy you a copy of TurboTax for your birthday and give it to you (effectively transferring the license to you) then YOU own the program even though you didn't pay for it. Maybe buying someone a computer with Windows already installed would be a better example or the software in a car's integrated navigation system.