TRUST.Partner,  M.Jur (ECL)  JAN  LINDBERG

ITechLaw 6  November  2015

IP  Workshop

TRUST.

Copyright  Protection  of  a  Software  as  a  Work  with  Functional  Elements

TRUST.

JAN  LINDBERGLLM  2001  (University  of  Helsinki)MJur 2003  (University  of  Oxford)

Mergers  and  Acquisition,  OutsourcingPrivate  Equity  and  Venture  CapitalIP  and  Technology,  IT  Disputes

Jan.lindberg@thetrust.fi+358  (0)40 823  6031

www.thetrust.fi

TRUST.

Who  Are  We?Attorneys-­at-­Law TRUST. is a Finnish transaction boutique focusing on the mostdemanding M&A, outsourcing, private equity and venture capital, complextechnology and IP assignment. We ranked in all legal surveys among the oldestand largest firms in Finland. We operate in the energy sector, telecom, informationtechnology, biotech, fintech, financial regulation and banking assignments.

E-­mails: firstname.lastname@thetrust.fiMannerheimintie 20 B, 6th floor, Helsinki, Finland

TRUST.

What  is  the  Agenda  and  Scope  of  this  Workshop?• In  this  workshop  we  are  focusing  on  the  element  of  functionality  and  its  effects    on  availability  of  copyright  protection

• How  far  can  copyright  protect  functional  elements?

• Is  copyright  protection  available  in  case  of  trial  and  simple  computer  programs(i.e.,  in  embedded  systems)?

• Open  discussion

TRUST.

Copyright

• “A person who has created a literary or artistic work…”

• Originality, teoskynnys (Finnish), or similar “the product of independent and original creative work” by the author.

• “…within the limitations imposed hereinafter, copyright shall provide the exclusive right to control a work by reproducing it and by making it available to the public, in the original form or in an altered form, in translation or in adaptation, in another literary or artistic form, or by any other technique.”

TRUST.

SAS  Institute  Inc.  v  World  Programming  Ltd  (UK)• Lengthy  proceeding,  with  cases  in  the  USA  and  the  UK  (with  referral  to  the  ECJ)  • SAS  was  the  owner  of  the  SAS  System that  enabled  its  users  to  perform  data  processing  and  analysis  tasks  

• WPL  had  licensed  the  Learning  Edition  of  the  SAS  System,  enabling  it  to  study  and  use  the  SAS  System  

• On  the  basis  of  its  tests  and  study,  WPL  had  developed  a  competing  system  that  was  interoperable  with  the  SAS  system  • Replication  of  the  functionality  of  certain  parts  of  the  SAS  System  • No  access  to  the  source  code  and  written  in  a  different  programming  language

• Enabled  SAS  users  to  change  systems,  which  was  previously  practically  impossible

TRUST.

SAS  Institute  Inc.  v  World  Programming  Ltd  (UK)• SAS  accused  WPL  of:

• copyright  infringement  (software  program  and  manual)  • breach  of  its  license  agreement  (non-­permitted  use)

• The  case  was  ruled  largely  in  the  favor  of  WPL  

TRUST.

Oracle  Am.,  Inc.  v  Google  Inc.  (US)

• In  November  2007  Google  released  the  beta  version  of  its  Android  mobile  platform

• In  August  2010,  Oracle  first  sued  Google  for  copyright  and  patent  infringement  • In  May  2012  and  District  Court  decided  on  copyright  protection  of  APIs• In  May  9  2014  judgment  form  the  Federal  Appeals  Court• In  June  29  2015  Supreme  Court  declines  to  hear  Oracle  v.  Google  case  over  software  copyright

• Issue  of  “fair  use”  still  open

TRUST.

Oracle  Am.,  Inc.  v  Google  Inc.  (US)

• At  [22]  “…Because  we  conclude  that  the  declaring  code  and  the  structure,  sequence,  and  organization  of  the  API  packages are  entitled  to  copyright  protection,  we  reverse  the  district  court’s  copyrightability determination  with  instructions  to  reinstate  the  jury’s  infringement  finding  as  to  the  37  Java  packages.”

• At  [52]  “…We  are  mindful  that  the  application  of  copyright  law  in  the  computer  context  is  often  a  difficult  task.  [...]  On  this  record,  however,  we  find  that  the  district  court  failed  to  distinguish  between  the  threshold  question  of  what  is  copyrightable-­-­which  presents  a  low  bar-­-­and  the  scope  of  conduct  that  constitutes  infringing  activity.  The  court  also  erred  by  importing  fair  use  principles,  including  interoperability  concerns,  into  its  copyrightability analysis.”

TRUST.

Case  “Karelian  Pie”  (FI)

When  is  a  computer  program  of  an  embedded  system  protected  by  copyright?

• Requirement:  “the  product  of  independent  and  original  creative  work”  by  the  author

• According  to  an  opinion  of  the  Finnish  Copyright  Committee  (1987:8):  “a  trivial  program  consisting  mainly  of  functions  obvious  to  a  professional  user  does  not  meet  the  threshold  of  originality  and  is  thus  not  protected  by  copyright.”

TRUST.

Case  “Karelian  Pie”  (FI)

Case  “Karelian  Pie”  – a  simple  machine  used  to  make  Karelian  pies

District  Court:  

“The only evidence of that the program meets the threshold of originality is theopinion of the Copyright Council. Given that the opinion is…defective (based onincorrect facts), and all other clarification, especially the statements by experts Gand J, seem to lead to the conclusion that the program is too trivial to meet thethreshold of originality, and thus the district court concludes that the program beingprotected by copyright remains unsubstantiated.”

TRUST.

Case  “Karelian  Pie”  (FI)

Court  of  Appeal:

“According to Article 1 of Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection of computerprograms, a computer program shall be protected if it is original in the sense that itis the author's own intellectual creation. Other criteria shall not be applied whenassessing, whether the program is protected.”

“In the light of the directive, it seems obvious that computer programs quite easilymeet the threshold of originality”

“Taking into consideration the principles outlined in the directive, the Court ofAppeal concludes -­-­ that the computer program subject to the claim shall bedeemed a literary work referred to in Section 1 of the Copyright Act.”

TRUST.

Open  discussion

TRUST.

“Copyright  protection  of  computer  programs  is  narrower  in  the  EU  as  in  the  

US”

TRUST.

“Software  industry  should  not  be  treated  differently  if  compared  to  other  industries  and  therefore  contractual  restrictions  to  studying,  observation  and  testing  of  any  licensed  technology  should  be  valid”

TRUST.

“Interfaces  should  not  be  subject  to  copyright  protection”

TRUST.

“Programming  languages  should  have  copyright  protection”

TRUST.

“There  is  no  computer  program  simple  enough  to  be  denied  copyright  protection”

TRUST.

“Copyright  is  not  the  correct  form  of  protection  for  computer  programs  and  

functional  elements”

TRUST. THANK YOU !