tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post4855774656527043350..comments2024-03-29T13:59:42.629+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Not much of an SOS for SASVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-77947782330503365162012-05-05T23:20:45.932+01:002012-05-05T23:20:45.932+01:00Tom, I will try to answer your question. It shall ...Tom, I will try to answer your question. It shall be applied the criteria of Infopaq (as mentioned in the ruling) where it was stated that words considered in isolation are not protected by copyright. But, the choice, sequence and combination of those words could be protected if they are the authors' own intellectual creation. So, one word alone is not protected, but more than one could be. And that is the problem that anonymous, Francis Davey and Gareth are highlighting beause de facto the Court is protecting the programming language.GBNnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-46036084567654968422012-05-04T09:42:57.017+01:002012-05-04T09:42:57.017+01:00The ruling may be clear, but it's not that hel...The ruling may be clear, but it's not that helpful.<br /><br />The first question is answered, as pointed out above, by saying that while a language is not a progam, it might still attract copyright protection under the InfoSoc Directive.<br /><br />The second answer says an act doesn't infringe copyright where: (a) it is authorised; or (b) doesn't infringe copyright.<br /><br />The third answer says go away and apply Infopaq yourself.<br /><br />Or did I miss something?Garethnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-12919928523931907202012-05-03T13:16:59.814+01:002012-05-03T13:16:59.814+01:00Is the following a useful concrete example? It...Is the following a useful concrete example? It's one thing I was hoping would be answered, but I still don't feel like it has been:<br /><br />Suppose you design a programming language which has "while" loops - e.g. "while x<0 print 'we've run out of x!'". Any piece of software that runs programs written in the language (an "interpreter") needs to be able to recognise the keyword "while" in order to work.<br /><br />The thing is, you could use the keyword "while", but you equally could also use any other keyword (or keyphrase) in its place -"whilst", "when", "upon being cognisant that", "banana", "alskdjfh", or any other piece of text you like - if you wanted, you could use a paragraph of original text that if found in a book would without doubt attract copyright. The point is there's nothing special about the keyword as far as the programming language is concerned, it just needs to know what it is so it can recognise it. Keywords usually have a "human" meaning relating to their purpose, but only to aid people when reading/writing code.<br /><br />So, the question I wanted answering (amongst others): is it an infringement of copyright to write a piece of software that can run code written in a particular language, when that language contains keywords which would in another context attract copyright. The interpreter would need to be able to interpret the keywords the language contains, and those keywords are arbitrary, so in a sense they're not directly tied to the functionality of the language - any other keywords could be used to provide exactly the same functionality.<br /><br />As the two comments above say, we now seem to know that the keywords wouldn't be protected by copyright <i>in computer programs</i> - but could they be protected by copyright in their own right regardless of the fact they're used in a prpgramming language? Or does their use in a language exhaust any such rights, in the context of interpreters, manuals explaining how to use the language, or otherwise?<br /><br />(Having written all that, it's really rather confused - I fear the answer to my initial question might be a simple "no".)Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-88478216208106534932012-05-02T20:18:35.276+01:002012-05-02T20:18:35.276+01:00Exactly.
I hate to disagree with someone so expe...Exactly. <br /><br />I hate to disagree with someone so expert as Jeremy, but the court is saying anything but "you can't monopolise a language per se". As I read the decision they are hinting that you certainly can, provided it is its author's own intellectual creation.<br /><br />As I read it, paragraph 45 is intended precisely to ensure that no-one takes away the idea that languages and data file formats can't be protected by copyright, lest the court's answer be otherwise misunderstood.Francis Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10228026893626221724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-88300820685527992382012-05-02T15:33:44.322+01:002012-05-02T15:33:44.322+01:00I think the reason the Court dispensed with the te...I think the reason the Court dispensed with the terms of the questions of the Referring Court was because they were in large part premised and packaged in terms of "skill, judgment and labour" which must be now old English law.<br /><br />As to the outcome, bizarrely what the Court takes away with one hand with respect to computer programs in the context of Directive 91/250qualifying its answers always by "for the purposes of this Directive", it gives back with the other hand in the context of Directive 2001/29. See paragraph 45. In this respect, the Court is more more generous than AG Bot. However, the key to the scope of Directive 91/250 itself must lie in paragraph 43.<br /><br />As to the link between Article 5(3) and Article 6, the buck stops at paragraph 60 when read alongside paragraph 45, in terms of what you can do with the ideas and principles you glean from studying etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com