Programming Languages 'Do Not Enjoy Copyright Protection'

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The European Court of Justice has ruled that programming languages "do not enjoy copyright protection." I know you guys are going to have an opinion on this one. :eek:

On the basis of those considerations, the Court holds 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 constitute a form of expression. Accordingly, they do not enjoy copyright protection.
 
Now rule on whether or not one should be allowed to patent computer programs and programming languages.
 
This is a big deal. If you remember NVIDIA claimed copyright on generic standard AA code in Batman:AA and was used as an excuse to have no AA supported on AMD cards. If only the USA could rule the same.
 
I have a problem with the idea that my inventing of a pattern and structure of symbols to my liking and use that translates into organized zeros and ones that a piece of silicon can read can't be my property.

There is a basic malfunction in the perception of this because a written invented language like say Klingon (copyright Paramount btw) is copyrightable but apparently if you throw the word "computer" in from of it, it is not.

In the same odd way we can say something like a filing cabinet is so fundamental in concept its not copyrightable in reality, but if we make a file that works like one it is copyrightable like the custom xml infringment that came up. The idea that if you have edits to a document, you file them with references (ie.tabs on a file cabinet indicating where those pages should go) via computer that's copyrighted.
 
Now rule on whether or not one should be allowed to patent computer programs and programming languages.
i can understand patents for languages, but not programs
 
European Court of Justice meet the can of worms you have just opened.

While I have a problem with software patents it is somewhat absurd to claim that a programming language does not constitute a form of expression. I don't know any two programmers who code in the exact same way (i.e. they express themselves differently even when coding in the same language).
 
As a programmer, I'm glad. Now I don't have to worry about my entire career being illegal. You can't copyright English, you can't copyright mathematical notation, and you shouldn't be able to copyright a programming language.
 
This is a good and correct ruling.

European Court of Justice meet the can of worms you have just opened.

While I have a problem with software patents it is somewhat absurd to claim that a programming language does not constitute a form of expression. I don't know any two programmers who code in the exact same way (i.e. they express themselves differently even when coding in the same language).

You may want to actually read the linked article and not just the quoted part. They are specifically not allowing the problem you are alluding to with software patents from being a copyright issue as well.

The Article said:
Thus, only the expression of those ideas and principles is protected by copyright.

Translation: You cannot copy someone else's code, but you can write code that accomplishes the same thing.
 
I wonder if this would cause American courts to want to revisit old cases and reverse a few judgments, like the i4i case against Microsoft. Then again, American courts aren't known for wanting to be like European courts. Our judges are too quick to say European ideals are too socialist.
 
Translation: You cannot copy someone else's code, but you can write code that accomplishes the same thing.

If that's the upshot of this ruling, and if the US rules the same, we'll all benefit.

I should be able to sit at my PC and code something from scratch without worrying about violating silly concept patents like 'swipe to unlock'.
 
This is a good and correct ruling.



You may want to actually read the linked article and not just the quoted part. They are specifically not allowing the problem you are alluding to with software patents from being a copyright issue as well.



Translation: You cannot copy someone else's code, but you can write code that accomplishes the same thing.

sounds good to me. You can protect or copywrite the code itself and the monetary value it has, but you can't patent the function of what the code accomplishes.
 
I wonder if this would cause American courts to want to revisit old cases and reverse a few judgments, like the i4i case against Microsoft. Then again, American courts aren't known for wanting to be like European courts. Our judges are too quick to say European ideals are too socialist.

Answer: No. The American Justice system, like the European, does not take cues from one another regarding copyright and patent law, mostly because there is a bottomless, uncrossable pit between the two in terms of how the laws are written. Hence why Google trying to use this judgement against Oracle in it's pending case would be silly and ridiculous (It did it anyways). The hope is that the EU's ruling would affect the opinion of the presiding judge.
 
sounds good to me. You can protect or copywrite the code itself and the monetary value it has, but you can't patent the function of what the code accomplishes.

Not what the court ruled. The court did NOT rule on the issue of patentability of software. Only on the copyrightability of APIs. The court specifically ruled that computer languages at their core do NOT have the ability to be copyrighted. As APIs are a logical extension of a Programming language, the court ruled that they also cannot be afforded copyright protection. Software patents do exist in the EU and this ruling had no affect on them or the scope of such patents.

At least, this is my understanding.

Cheers,
 
Damn so all this time throughout grad school when I was "Forced" to use some proprietary computer language (IDL) I could have downloaded it.. legally... and done my work at home (without guilt) instead of in the computer labs
 
This isn't a ruling about patents, it is only a ruling about copyright (unless I'm missing something). Copyright law and patent law aren't the same thing. Yes, they can still patent the concept, it just isn't subject to copyright law. No surprise there.
 
Damn so all this time throughout grad school when I was "Forced" to use some proprietary computer language (IDL) I could have downloaded it.. legally... and done my work at home (without guilt) instead of in the computer labs

Maybe, but you wouldn't have been able to do any compiling at home, since it has been ruled that compilers are patentable. So even though the language may not enjoy copyright protection in the EU, you most likely would not have been able to do anything with code you wrote.

Cheers,
 
sounds good to me. You can protect or copywrite the code itself and the monetary value it has, but you can't patent the function of what the code accomplishes.

Correct.

In the press release from the court reproduced on Groklaw, I found these additional gems:

To accept that the functionality of a computer program can be protected by copyright would amount to making it possible to monopolise ideas, to the detriment of technological progress and industrial development.

-and to make it even more robust:

Second, the Court observes that, according to the Directive, the purchaser of a software licence has the right to observe, study or test the functioning of that software in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program. Any contractual provisions contrary to that right are null and void.

Emphasis mine.
 
Answer: No. The American Justice system, like the European, does not take cues from one another regarding copyright and patent law, mostly because there is a bottomless, uncrossable pit between the two in terms of how the laws are written. Hence why Google trying to use this judgement against Oracle in it's pending case would be silly and ridiculous (It did it anyways). The hope is that the EU's ruling would affect the opinion of the presiding judge.

On the other hand the mismatched laws between American and the European Union is going to cause a lot of trade headaches. It's nothing new I suppose.
 
This isn't a ruling about patents, it is only a ruling about copyright (unless I'm missing something). Copyright law and patent law aren't the same thing. Yes, they can still patent the concept, it just isn't subject to copyright law. No surprise there.

Correct. This ruling had no bearing on software patents, only whether or not software APIs are copyrightable in the EU.

Cheers,
 
On the other hand the mismatched laws between American and the European Union is going to cause a lot of trade headaches. It's nothing new I suppose.

What's worse is the problems it's been causing in the litigation scene. I refer you to Apple vs. Motorola Mobility, Nokia vs. HTC/ViewSonic/RIM , Microsoft vs. Motorola, etc.

Cheers,
 
I have a problem with the idea that my inventing of a pattern and structure of symbols to my liking and use that translates into organized zeros and ones that a piece of silicon can read can't be my property.
It's not the application of the language, just the language itself. In other words, you still have the right to ownership over the "use that translates into organized zeros and ones". The idea of wrapping function code in the words "def" and "end" instead of "{" and "}", to me, does not seem like something that someone should be able to copyright, to use a simplistic example.

As a programmer, I'm glad. Now I don't have to worry about my entire career being illegal. You can't copyright English, you can't copyright mathematical notation, and you shouldn't be able to copyright a programming language.
As much as I hate rules and restrictions on the things we do, I'm inclined to agree. Programming languages being unencumbered leads to greater things not just for programmers but for everyone. I'm very much an advocate of the public domain, and public domain is exactly where programming languages should be.
 
If that's the upshot of this ruling, and if the US rules the same, we'll all benefit.

I should be able to sit at my PC and code something from scratch without worrying about violating silly concept patents like 'swipe to unlock'.

Unfortunately, that second if is a huge if.

I agree with your assertion, unfortunately (again), this EU ruling is about copyright and not patents. So we are still a long ways off from protecting the coder. We still need the US courts to see this ruling, and decide it is correct and adopt the same ruling. Then we need to see them decide that this new concept should hold true for patents as well.

I am not holding my breath.
 
sounds good to me. You can protect or copywrite the code itself and the monetary value it has, but you can't patent the function of what the code accomplishes.

Damn, no edit. I said earlier that you were correct but I missed that you swapped from copyright to patent in the second half of your statement.
 
Maybe, but you wouldn't have been able to do any compiling at home, since it has been ruled that compilers are patentable. So even though the language may not enjoy copyright protection in the EU, you most likely would not have been able to do anything with code you wrote.

Cheers,

Makes a lot of sense, as it would be silly for the IDL people (or whomever) to demand some sort of compensation just because you wrote a program that used their language.
 
Unfortunately, that second if is a huge if.

I agree with your assertion, unfortunately (again), this EU ruling is about copyright and not patents. So we are still a long ways off from protecting the coder. We still need the US courts to see this ruling, and decide it is correct and adopt the same ruling. Then we need to see them decide that this new concept should hold true for patents as well.

I am not holding my breath.

I don't think that there will be any reversal on Software patents in the near future. However, given the schizophrenic nature of our current supreme court (Mayo vs. Prometheus decision vs. Bliski decision anyone?!) one can never be too sure what's going to happen next in the world of Patent/Copyright law. That's what makes the field so fascinating!

It looks fairly certain that Google will be held to have infringed on Oracle's copyright, and that the Judge will not take into consideration any part of the EU ruling when making his decision about the law in of itself. I agree on a personal level that APIs, like languages themselves, should not be copyrightable. We shall see what the court system thinks. I have no reason to believe that this issue will be settled by anyone other than the SCOTUS.

Cheers,
 
Anyone who codes will tell you there isn't much of a difference between programming languages. It's mostly syntax. That's why most coders will first work on pseudo code and then begin to translate that to C++, Java, or whatever. Also like human languages, programming languages borrow ways to do things. You'll find a lot of things are just too similar. Like how a word in English is the same word in other languages, with the same meaning. So it's very hard to say you "own" a language.
 
Anyone who codes will tell you there isn't much of a difference between programming languages. It's mostly syntax.
I wouldn't necessarily say that. Purely-functional, imperative and declarative languages are miles apart in terms of how you apply syntax to application design, and smaller distinctions still have significant impact. Static vs. dynamic, and the capability for run-time type inference. Weak typing vs. strong typing. Object-oriented vs. non-object-oriented. Functions as objects vs. traditional functions. These differences do play a significant role in how a person can/should/will approach their designs.

It'd be nice if differences between languages were mostly syntactic — it'd make things much easier on programmers — but very seldom is that the case.
 
I wouldn't necessarily say that. Purely-functional, imperative and declarative languages are miles apart in terms of how you apply syntax to application design, and smaller distinctions still have significant impact. Static vs. dynamic, and the capability for run-time type inference. Weak typing vs. strong typing. Object-oriented vs. non-object-oriented. Functions as objects vs. traditional functions. These differences do play a significant role in how a person can/should/will approach their designs.

It'd be nice if differences between languages were mostly syntactic — it'd make things much easier on programmers — but very seldom is that the case.

True, though I think the main point still holds. If you have a good foundation on functional/imperative/OOP programming, typing, interpretation/compilation, and low vs high level concepts then the programming language is totally insignificant. I can easily accomplish the same task in any modern language while also sticking to best practices and such. All you need is a cursory glance at a reference guide and a good understanding of computer science fundamentals.
 
Not what the court ruled. The court did NOT rule on the issue of patentability of software. Only on the copyrightability of APIs. The court specifically ruled that computer languages at their core do NOT have the ability to be copyrighted. As APIs are a logical extension of a Programming language, the court ruled that they also cannot be afforded copyright protection. Software patents do exist in the EU and this ruling had no affect on them or the scope of such patents.

At least, this is my understanding.

Cheers,

Thanls for the clarification. I misunderstood.
 
Back
Top