Content deleted Content added
m Added {{Cleanup-link rot}} tag using AWB |
Filling in 1 references using Reflinks |
||
Line 1:
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 | ECIS |publisher=Ecis.eu |date=2011-12-09 |accessdate=2012-08-08}}</ref> Some observers say the case is as important as the [[
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
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>
Line 22 ⟶ 20:
== 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>
Line 35 ⟶ 32:
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
The US case filed by SAS Institute against WPS was dismissed
Line 47 ⟶ 43:
==References==
{{Cleanup-link rot|date=August 2012}}
{{
== External links ==
| |||