Comments on: Landmark software copyright case in the UK http://www.technollama.co.uk/landmark-software-copyright-case Not Just Another Technology Law Blog Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:36:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Andres http://www.technollama.co.uk/landmark-software-copyright-case/comment-page-1#comment-6082 Andres Mon, 06 Sep 2010 08:56:03 +0000 http://www.technollama.co.uk/?p=3074#comment-6082 The definition of functionality in software in the UK is set out in <a href"="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2004/1725.html" rel="nofollow">Navitaire v Easyjet</a>, and it includes functional elements such as syntax (see para 45). I am not too familiar with Base SAS, but I am finding it really hard to think of how you can protect programming syntax through copyright law, at least in the UK in light of Navitaire. To me syntax is a functional element. It may be different in Australia. Can you give me some feedback about the Australian concept of form? Is it statutory, or case law? The definition of functionality in software in the UK is set out in Navitaire v Easyjet, and it includes functional elements such as syntax (see para 45).

I am not too familiar with Base SAS, but I am finding it really hard to think of how you can protect programming syntax through copyright law, at least in the UK in light of Navitaire. To me syntax is a functional element. It may be different in Australia.

Can you give me some feedback about the Australian concept of form? Is it statutory, or case law?

]]> By: Luke Lake http://www.technollama.co.uk/landmark-software-copyright-case/comment-page-1#comment-6080 Luke Lake Mon, 06 Sep 2010 07:21:46 +0000 http://www.technollama.co.uk/?p=3074#comment-6080 Sorry for being pedantic but "what is the UK legal definition of functional?". I would suggest that SAS language syntax is not functional but fits under the AUST copyright principles of form. There is nothing stopping SAS from putting their syntax in whatever strange combination they like but that final combination that SAS decides on has structure, their structure, and is what I would call "form". The weirdo combinations of keywords they can possibly use are functional but the final syntax they have decided on for their product is "form". In the above case, WP would not have had any customers if they had changed the "form" of SAS syntax. Sorry for being pedantic but “what is the UK legal definition of functional?”. I would suggest that SAS language syntax is not functional but fits under the AUST copyright principles of form. There is nothing stopping SAS from putting their syntax in whatever strange combination they like but that final combination that SAS decides on has structure, their structure, and is what I would call “form”. The weirdo combinations of keywords they can possibly use are functional but the final syntax they have decided on for their product is “form”. In the above case, WP would not have had any customers if they had changed the “form” of SAS syntax.

]]> By: Andres http://www.technollama.co.uk/landmark-software-copyright-case/comment-page-1#comment-6077 Andres Mon, 06 Sep 2010 07:10:12 +0000 http://www.technollama.co.uk/?p=3074#comment-6077 Because functional elements are not covered by copyright, that's what patents are for. Because functional elements are not covered by copyright, that’s what patents are for.

]]> By: Luke Lake http://www.technollama.co.uk/landmark-software-copyright-case/comment-page-1#comment-6075 Luke Lake Mon, 06 Sep 2010 05:26:51 +0000 http://www.technollama.co.uk/?p=3074#comment-6075 Copyright protects the "form" of the idea/expression. Syntax of a SAS command/keywords are in a certain form in order to function/execute. Why is this "form" not protected? Copyright protects the “form” of the idea/expression. Syntax of a SAS command/keywords are in a certain form in order to function/execute. Why is this “form” not protected?

]]>