SAS Institute lawsuit with World Programming: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:32, 11 March 2012

Revision as of 19:25, 12 March 2012

Line 29:

The above judgement was appealed to European Court of Justice. Advocate-General Yves Bot of the European Court of Justice handed down his opinion in SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Limited on 29 November 2011.

The verdict conclusion is here-

[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 ]

108. The question now is whether, by including in the WPL Manual and the WPL System certain elements contained in the SAS Manuals, WPL infringed the copyright held by SAS institute in the latter manuals.

109. As we saw in point 43 of this Opinion, copyright is guided by the principle that copyright protection extends to expressions and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such.

110. In this case, the referring court states that WPL has, in particular, taken the keywords, syntax, commands and combinations of commands, options, defaults and iterations from the SAS Manuals in order to reproduce them in its program, as well as in the WPL manual.

110. In this case, the referring court states that WPL has, in particular, taken the keywords, syntax, commands and combinations of commands, options, defaults and iterations from the SAS Manuals in order to reproduce them in its program, as well as in the WPL manual.

111. In my opinion, these elements, as such, do not qualify for the protection conferred by copyright.

Line 68 ⟶ 62:

Defendant.

In their briefing, the parties have raised for the court’s consideration a variety of interesting

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.

Line 99 ⟶ 88:

[[Category:Copyright case law]]

[[Category:United Kingdom copyright case law]]

[[Category:Copyright infringement of software]]

{{catimprove|date=July 2011}}