 |
| It is well-known that speaking of used software is the secret to a successful date |
This is my first post as a guest Kat, and I am indeed looking forward to these months together.
The story I would like to start with may not be the most intriguing to
tell, unless you believe that there is something sexy in the resale of
downloaded software.
Apparently this is what the Court of Justice of the European Union
believed, when this morning delivered its 89-paragraph judgment in Case 128/11 UsedSoft v Oracle, on which Advocate
General Bot had given his Opinion a few months ago (see earlier posts here and here).
Background and questions referred
As is well-known, Oracle has not only been busy in various courts recently (eg with the Oracle v Google saga),
but is also a software house, which develops and markets computer software. In
85% of cases, Oracle distributes its software by download directly from its own website.
The user right in those programs includes the right to store the software permanently on a server and to allow a number of users to access it by downloading the software to the main memory of their workstation. On the basis of a software maintenance agreement, updated versions of the software and programs for correcting faults (patches) can be downloaded from Oracle's website.
Oracle's licence agreements include, among the other things, the following proviso:
With
the payment for services you receive, exclusively for your internal business
purposes and for an unlimited period, a non-exclusive, non-transferable
user right, free of charge, in respect of everything which Oracle develops and
makes available to you on the basis of this agreement.
UsedSoft, as the name suggests, trades in used
software licences. In 2005 it started offering used Oracle licences, stating
that they were current in the sense that the maintenance agreement concluded
between the initial licence holder and Oracle was still in force and that the
legality of the sale was confirmed by a notarial certificate.
Customers who were not yet in possession of
the Oracle software concerned, downloaded the software directly from Oracle’s
website after acquiring the ‘used’ licences, while those who already had the
software and wished to purchase licences for additional users (Oracle allowed a maximum of 25 users per licence) downloaded the
software to the main memory of the workstations of those additional users.
Oracle was not particularly happy with this
state of affairs. So it sought and obtained an injunction from the Landgericht
München I (Regional Court, Munich I) to prevent the continuation of these
practices. Following the dismissal of the appeal lodged by UsedSoft against
that decision, UsedSoft lodged with the
Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court, Germany).
According to the Bundesgerichtshof, the actions of
UsedSoft and its customers infringed Oracle’s exclusive right of permanent or
temporary reproduction of computer programs within the meaning of Article
4(1)(a) of Directive 2009/24 (this is the codified version of the Software
Directive). However, the
Court decided to stay the
proceedings and referred three questions to the CJEU:
(1) Is the person who can
rely on exhaustion of the right to distribute a copy of a computer program a
“lawful acquirer” within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 …? [“In the absence of specific contractual
provisions, [most infringing acts, such as reproduction, translation,
adaptation, and arrangement] shall not require authorisation by the rightholder
where they are necessary for the use of the computer program by the lawful
acquirer in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error
correction.”]
(2) If the reply to the
first question is in the affirmative: is the right to distribute a copy of a
computer program exhausted in accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 [“The first sale in the Community of a copy
of a program by the rightholder or with his consent shall exhaust the
distribution right within the Community of that copy, with the exception of the
right to control further rental of the program or a copy thereof.”] … when the acquirer has made the copy with
the rightholder’s consent by downloading the program from the internet onto a
data carrier?
 |
| It was rather exhausting for Henry to understand the questions referred by the Bundesgerichtshof ... |
(3) If the reply to the
second question is also in the affirmative: can a person who has acquired a
“used” software licence for generating a program copy as “lawful acquirer”
under Article 5(1) and Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 … also rely on exhaustion
of the right to distribute the copy of the computer program made by the first
acquirer with the rightholder’s consent by downloading the program from the
internet onto a data carrier if the first acquirer has erased his program copy
or no longer uses it?
The
response of the CJEU
Question
2 – Exhaustion of the right of distribution
Following an explanation of
the rationale underlying Article 5(1) (to safeguard the exhaustion of the distribution right under
Article 4(2)), the CJEU decided to address the second question first. This concerned whether and under what conditions the downloading from the internet of a copy
of a computer program, authorised by the copyright holder, can give rise to
exhaustion of the right of distribution of that copy in the EU within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24.
Wishing to praise the usual clarity of EU law provisions, the Court observed that “there are several possible
interpretations” of Article 4(2).
As a
first option, Article 4(2) could be interpreted
as attaching the legal consequence of exhaustion of the distribution right to
the first sale of a copy of the
program and not necessarily
presupposing the putting into circulation of a physical copy of the program.
Alternatively, Article 4(2) could be applicable by
analogy in the case of the sale of a computer program by means of online
transmission. This would be because of an unintended lacuna in the Directive,
which does not regulate or contemplate online transmission of computer
programs.
A third interpretation would be in the sense to make
Article 4(2) inapplicable, in that the exhaustion of the distribution right
under that provision always presupposes the putting into circulation of a
physical copy of the program by the rightholder or with his consent. In other
words, the authors of the Directive deliberately refrained from extending the
rule on exhaustion to the online transmission of computer programs.
This said, the Court found that, in order to determine whether the copyright holder’s
distribution right is exhausted, it must be ascertained first whether the
contractual relationship between the rightholder and its customer may be
regarded as a "first sale … of a copy of
a program" within the meaning of Article 4(2).
 |
| ... But to Bertrand the questions looked extremely easy, being a streetwise downloader of used software |
the commercial transaction giving rise, in accordance
with Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24, to exhaustion of the right of
distribution of a copy of a computer program must involve a transfer of the
right of ownership in that copy.
According to the Court, this is what happened in
relation to the downloading of Oracle’s computer programs from the software
house’s website. Indeed,
It makes no difference, in a situation such as that at
issue in the main proceedings, whether the copy of the computer program was
made available to the customer by the rightholder concerned by means of a
download from the rightholder’s website or by means of a material medium such
as a CD-ROM or DVD. Even if, in the latter case too, the rightholder formally
separates the customer’s right to use the copy of the program supplied from the
operation of transferring the copy of the program to the customer on a material
medium, the operation of downloading from that medium a copy of the computer
program and that of concluding a licence agreement remain inseparable from the
point of view of the acquirer …
According to the Court, to limit the application of the principle of the
exhaustion under Article 4(2) solely to copies that are sold on a material
medium would allow the copyright holder to control the resale of copies
downloaded from the internet and to demand further remuneration on the occasion
of each new sale, even though the first sale of the copy had already enabled
the rightholder to obtain an appropriate remuneration. Such a restriction of
the resale of copies of computer programs downloaded from the internet would go
beyond what is necessary to safeguard the specific subject-matter of the
intellectual property concerned.
Furthermore, considering the conclusion of a maintenance agreement aimed
at patching and updating the copy originally purchased, the exhaustion of the
distribution right under Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 extends to the copy
of the computer program sold as corrected and updated by the copyright holder.
In any case, however, if the licence acquired by the first acquirer
relates to a greater number of users than he needs, the acquirer is not
authorised by the effect of the exhaustion of the distribution right under
Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 to divide the licence and resell only the user
right for the computer program concerned corresponding to a number of users
determined by him.
According to the Court,
 |
| The judges of the CJEU turned into oracles to address exhaustion issues |
Questions 1 and 3 – Notion of ‘lawful
acquirer’
By its first and third questions the referring court
wished essentially to know whether, and under what conditions, an acquirer of
used licences for computer programs may, as a result of the exhaustion of the
distribution right under Article 4(2), be regarded as a ‘lawful acquirer’
within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 who, in accordance with
that provision, enjoys the right of reproduction of the program concerned in
order to enable him to use the program in accordance with its intended purpose.
Following the response provided to Question 2, the
Court held that, since the copyright holder cannot object to the resale of
a copy of a computer program for which that rightholder’s distribution right is
exhausted, a second acquirer of that copy and any subsequent
acquirer are ‘lawful acquirers’ of it.
A sound judgment ... with some dark shadows
The judgment of the Court looks pretty sensible. In particular, it would
have been fairly unreasonable to distinguish the situation in which the copy of a computer program is made available by
means of a download from the rightholder’s website from that in which the copy
is provided through a material medium such as a CD-ROM or DVD, also in consideration of current commercial practices and users' habits.
In any case, the Court did not interpret the principle of exhaustion in too a radical (pro-competitive?) manner. In particular, it is likely that controversy arises in relation to the part of the ruling in which the Court made it clear that the first purchaser of a licence is not authorised by the effect of the exhaustion of the distribution right to subsequently divide the licence he has acquired.
In any case, the Court did not interpret the principle of exhaustion in too a radical (pro-competitive?) manner. In particular, it is likely that controversy arises in relation to the part of the ruling in which the Court made it clear that the first purchaser of a licence is not authorised by the effect of the exhaustion of the distribution right to subsequently divide the licence he has acquired.
Do you want to reuse the IPKat content? Please refer to our
Policies section.
If you have any queries or requests for permission, please get in touch with the IPKat team.