SAS Institute lawsuit with World Programming: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:21, 17 December 2012

Revision as of 11:06, 28 January 2013

Line 1:

{{merge|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}}in November 2009. 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]].

Line 7:

== High Court of England and Wales ==

The [[High Court of England and Wales]] made the following observations in it's initial judgement.<ref>[http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/1829.html#para332 Initial High court 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).

Line 19:

: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.

After referring certain questions<ref>[http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2013/69.html#para6 Qusetions referred to the CJEU]</ref> to the Court of Justice of the European Union, the HIgh Court provided it's final judgement<ref>[http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2013/69.html Final High Court Judgement]</ref> on 25 January 2013 that concluded with the Judge's final statement:

:82. For the reasons given above, I dismiss all of SAS Institute's claims except for its claim in respect of the WPS Manual. That claim succeeds to the extent indicated in my first judgment, but no further.<ref>[http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2013/69.html#para82 Judges Final Statement</ref>

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

Line 31 ⟶ 36:

: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 returnreturned to the High Court of England and Wales for it to ruleprovide final judgement<ref>[http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2013/69.html Final High Court Judgement]</ref> on how25 theJanuary ECJ2013 judgmentapplying the shouldCJEU applyfindings to the particular facts of this case.

== Additional US lawsuit==

Line 46 ⟶ 51:

== External links ==

* [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/20102013/182969.html The initialFinal High Court Judgment]

* [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]