SAS Institute lawsuit with World Programming: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:21, 17 December 2012

Latest revision as of 18:40, 4 December 2014

(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{merge|#REDIRECT [[SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd|discuss=Talk:SAS Institute lawsuit with World Programming#Merger proposal|date=October 2012}} ]]

The [[SAS Institute]], creators of the [[SAS System]] filed a '''lawsuit against [[World Programming|World Programming Limited]]''', creators of [[World Programming System]] (WPS).{{when|date=May 2012}} The dispute was whether World Programming had infringed copyrights on SAS Institute Products, and Manuals and whether World Programming used SAS Learning Edition to reverse engineer SAS system in violation with its term of usage.

The case is interesting because World Programming did not have access to the SAS Institute's source code, and so the court considered the merits of a copyright claim based on observing functionality only. The European Committee for Interoperable Systems say that the case is important to the software industry.<ref>{{cite web|author=posted by ECIS |url=http://www.ecis.eu/2011/12/ecis-symposium-1-december-2011-bibliotheque-solvay-video-audio-presentations-and-related-materials/ |title=ECIS Symposium on the SAS v WPL Copyright case &#124; ECIS |publisher=Ecis.eu |date=2011-12-09 |accessdate=2012-08-08}}</ref> Some observers say the case is as important as the [[Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc.|Borland versus Lotus case]].

The [[European Court of Justice|EU Court of Justice]] ruled that copyright protection does not extend to the software functionality, the programming language used and the format of the data files used by the program. It stated that there is no copyright infringement when a company which does not have access to the source code of a program studies, observes and tests that program to create another program with the same functionality.<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-02/copyright-can-t-block-software-reverse-engineering-court.html | title = Copyright Can't Block Software Reverse Engineering: Court | author = Aoife White | publisher = Bloomberg | date = 2012-05-02 | accessdate = 2012-05-02 }}</ref>

== High Court of England and Wales ==

The [[High Court of England and Wales]] made the following observations.<ref>[http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/1829.html#para332 Judgement]</ref>

:ix) On the interpretation of Article 5(3) which I favour, WPL's use of the Learning Edition is within Article 5(3), and to the extent that the licence terms prevent this they are null and void, with the result that none of WPL's acts complained of was a breach of contract or an infringement of copyright except perhaps one (see paragraphs 313-315 above).

:x) WPL has infringed the copyrights in the SAS Manuals by substantially reproducing them in the WPL Manual (see paragraphs 317-319 above).

:xi) WPL has not infringed the copyrights in the SAS Manuals by producing the WPS Guides (see paragraphs 320-329 above).

:iv) On the assumption that Pumfrey J's interpretation of Article 1(2) of the Software Directive was correct, WPL has not infringed SAS Institute's copyrights in the SAS Components by producing WPS (see paragraphs 245-250 above).

:SAS can be considered a general programming language, though it serves largely as a database [[SAS programming language|programming language]] and a language with a wide variety of specialized analytic and graphic procedures.

First, the decision confirms what WPL has always admitted, namely that it has used the SAS Manuals to emulate functionality of the SAS System in WPS. Secondly, it shows that to some extent WPL has reproduced aspects of the SAS Manuals going beyond that which was strictly necessary in order for WPS to emulate the functions of the SAS System. What it does not show is reproduction of the SAS source code by WPS going beyond the reproduction of its functionality. WPL's manual writers did not directly copy from the SAS Manuals in the sense of having one of the SAS Manuals open in front of them when writing the WPS Manual and intentionally either transcribing or [[Paraphrasing of copyrighted material|paraphrasing]] the wording. A considerable degree of similarity in both content and language between the SAS Manual entries and the WPS Manual entries is to be expected given that they are describing identical functionality. The degree of resemblance in the language goes beyond that which is attributable to describing identical functionality.

== Court of Justice of the European Union reference ==

The High Court referred several questions of the interpretation of the Software Directive and the Copyright Directive to the Court of Justice of the European Union, under the [[preliminary ruling]] procedure. Advocate-General Yves Bot gave his Opinion on 29 November 2011.<ref>[http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130de82a77d2247f54418827c974b27e0ac40.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4NchmOe0?docid=115484&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&cid=14287 ECIS Judgement]</ref> The full judgement was handed down by the European Court of Justice on 2nd May 2012.<ref>[http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=122362&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=972439 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)]</ref> It largely adopted the Advocate-General's Opinion, holding 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 are covered by copyright.<ref>{{cite news | title=The functionality of a computer program and the programming language cannot be protected by copyright | work=Press release | date=May 2, 2012 | agency=Court of Justice of the European Union | accessdate=May 07, 2012}}</ref>

The Court concluded that:

:1. Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning 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 of that program and, as such, are not protected by copyright in computer programs for the purposes of that directive.

:2. Article 5(3) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that a person who has obtained a copy of a computer program under a licence is entitled, without the authorisation of the owner of the copyright, to observe, study or test the functioning of that program so as to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program, in the case where that person carries out acts covered by that licence and acts of loading and running necessary for the use of the computer program, and on condition that that person does not infringe the exclusive rights of the owner of the copyright in that program.

:3. Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the reproduction, in a computer program or a user manual for that program, of certain elements described in the user manual for another computer program protected by copyright is capable of constituting an infringement of the copyright in the latter manual if – this being a matter for the national court to ascertain – that reproduction constitutes the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of the user manual for the computer program protected by copyright.

The case will now return to the High Court for it to rule on how the ECJ judgment should apply to the particular facts of this case.

== Additional US lawsuit==

The US case filed by SAS Institute against WPS was dismissed

:SAS INSTITUTE INC., Plaintiff, v. WORLD PROGRAMMING LIMITED, Defendant.

:In their briefing, the parties have raised for the court’s consideration a variety of interesting and complex questions of law. But after considering the able arguments of counsel for both sides, the court is unable to conclude that it clearly erred in dismissing this action on for forum non conveniens. As such, and for the reasons set forth more particularly above, plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) (DE # 53) is DENIED.

:SO ORDERED, this the 22nd day of June, 2011.<ref>[http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncedce/5:2010cv00025/104187/63/ US Case by SAS Against WPS]</ref>

==References==

{{Reflist}}

== External links ==

* [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/1829.html The initial High Court Judgment]

* [http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=122362&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=972439 The ECJ Judgment]

[[Category:Copyright case law]]

[[Category:United Kingdom copyright case law]]

[[Category:Copyright infringement of software]]