Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Judge backs own judgment in software copyright case

Software company SAS Institute has lost its battle against rival World Programming (WPL) over alleged copyright infringement

SAS, which develops software for data processing and analysis, had sued WPL in the UK after the latter launched software called World Programming System (WPS) that could execute applications written in the SAS language. It alleged copyright infringement and breach of contract.

In July 2010, Mr Justice Arnold noted that there was some uncertainty over the interpretation of the EU Software Directive and referred nine questions to the CJEU. However, he also gave his provisional findings on the law and facts, which were broadly in favour of WPL.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) gave its judgmentlast year, in which it confirmed that the functionality and programming language of a computer program cannot be protected by copyright (further analysishere).

The case then came back to the UK courts, and the judge was effectively asked to review his original judgment in the light of the CJEU ruling.

Arnold said that the CJEU judgment essentially endorsed the interpretation of the Directive in the UK courts: “In short, copyright in a computer program does not protect either the programming language in which it is written or its interfaces (specifically, its data file formats) or its functionality from being copied.”

And, despite the arguments made by SAS, Arnold upheldall of his original findings: there was no infringement, except to a limited extent in the case of the WPS Manual.

Hamish Sandison, a partner of Field Fisher Waterhouse, welcomed the ruling: "[Arnold] strikes a fair balance between the rights of the first software developer and a newcomer by reaffirming that the first developer may prevent the newcomer from getting a free ride from literal copying of its program manuals, while at the same time making clear that the newcomer is at liberty to copy the functionality of the first program.”

But he added: “It is disappointing perhaps that the English court did not rule on whether a programming language can be protected as a distinct copyright work. But this point was not pleaded in time and it must await another day."

SAS was represented by barristers Michael Hicks and Guy Hollingworth and law firm Bristows. World Programming was represented by barristers Martin Howe QC, Robert Onslow and Isabel Jamal and law firm Speechly Bircham.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

12th annual awards announces winners
Sources say parties in trademark cases could tussle over the meaning of source identifier and whether surveys are fair, following the US Supreme Court ruling
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
In-house sources say the UPC’s determinations on validity, injunctions, and damages could dictate whether companies leave their patents in or out
Business is quiet so far but the UPC has everything it needs to attract patentees, panellists at Managing IP’s IP & Innovation Summit argued yesterday, June 7
Reviewing the list of automatically qualifying degrees every three years is a great idea and should bring more tech-savvy people to the bar
A Foss Patents blog post revealed that Mr Justice Marcus Smith handed down his judgment in Optis v Apple on May 10
Witnesses during a committee hearing criticised proposals to increase some fees by as much as 400%
Sources say they are likely to hire external counsel that can create a lasting first impression but might turn their backs on lawyers who have nothing new to offer
Varuni Paranavitane, of counsel at Finnegan, examines recent decisions by US and UK courts to demonstrate the proof of infringement that was required