On the 2nd of May 2012, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) handed down a judgment that validates the World Programming System (WPS), developed by World Programming Limited (WPL), as a legitimate and lawful product for processing the language of SAS.

The ECJ judgment confirms the initial UK High Court judgment on 23 July 2010 by Mr Justice Arnold. In his conclusions, Mr Justice Arnold rejected SAS Institute claims against World Programming stating that the WPS product does not infringe copyright in the SAS System.

A spokesperson from World Programming commented, "The ECJ findings are in line with expectations. The software industry will benefit greatly from this important clarification that will encourage future competition and innovation."

Who is SAS

Everyone knows SAS www.sas.com


Who is World Programming System

From the wikipedia:

"The World Programming System, also known as WPS, is a software product developed by a company called World Programming. WPS allows users to create, edit and run programs written in the language of SAS.

The program was the subject of a lawsuit by SAS Institute. The EU Court of Justice ruled in favor of World Programming, stating that the copyright protection does not extend to the software functionality, the programming language used and the format of the data files used by the program. It stated that there is no copyright infringement when a company which does not have access to the source code of a program studies, observes and tests that program to create another program with the same functionality.

About

WPS can use programs written in the language of SAS without the need for translating them into any other language. In this regard WPS is compatible with the SAS system. WPS is a language interpreter able to process the language of SAS and produce similar results.

WPS is available to run on Mainframe z/OS, Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, Solaris, AIX and Linux on Mainframe System z.

On all supported platforms, programs written in the language of SAS can be executed from a WPS command line interface, often referred to as running in batch mode."


 

On an unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice I found a lot of interesting things:

 

  • The functionality of a computer program and the programming language cannot be protected by copyright

This seems obvious, I can make a wheel but I cannot claim rights on the rotation

  • The purchaser of a licence for a program is entitled, as a rule, to observe, study or test its functioning so as to determine the ideas and principles which underlie that program.

If I buy a product, with documentation and explanations I also buy the right to study it.

  • SAS Institute Inc. has developed the SAS System, an integrated set of programs which enables users to carry out data processing and analysis tasks, in particular statistical analysis. The core component of the SAS System is called Base SAS. It enables users to write and execute application programs (also known as ‘scripts’) written in the SAS programming language for data processing. World Programming Ltd (WPL) perceived that there was a market demand for alternative software capable of executing application programs written in the SAS Language. WPL therefore produced the World Programming System (WPS). The latter emulates functionalities of the SAS components to a large extent in that, with a few minor exceptions, WPL attempted to ensure that the same inputs would produce the same outputs. This would enable users of the SAS System to run the scripts which they have developed for use with the SAS System on WPS. In order to produce the WPS program, WPL lawfully acquired copies of the Learning Edition of the SAS System, which were supplied under licences limiting the rights of the licensee to non-production purposes. WPL used and studied those programs in order to understand their functioning but there is nothing to suggest that WPL had access to or copied the source code of the SAS components.

See above

  • The Court recalls, first, that the Directive on the legal protection of computer programs1 extends copyright protection to the expression in any form of an intellectual creation of the author of a computer program. However, ideas and principles which underlie any element of a computer program, including those which underlie its interfaces, are not protected by copyright under that directive. Thus, only the expression of those ideas and principles is protected by copyright. The object of the protection conferred by Directive 91/250 is the expression in any form of a computer program, such as the source code and the object code, which permits reproduction in different computer languages. 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.
  • 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.

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.

  • 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. Furthermore, the determination of those ideas and principles may be carried out within the framework of the acts permitted by the licence.

 

Consequently, the owner of the copyright in a computer program may not prevent, by relying on the licensing agreement, the purchaser of that licence from observing, studying or testing the functioning of that program so as to determine the ideas and principles which underlie all the elements of the program in the case where the purchaser carries out acts covered by that licence and the acts of loading and running necessary for the use of the program on condition that that purchaser does not infringe the exclusive rights of the owner of the copyright in that program.

In addition, according to the Court, there is no copyright infringement where, as in the present case, the lawful acquirer of the licence did not have access to the source code of the computer program but merely studied, observed and tested that program in order to reproduce its functionality in a second program.

  • Lastly, the Court holds that the reproduction, in a computer program or a user manual for that program, of certain elements described in the user manual for another computer program protected by copyright is capable of constituting an infringement of the copyright in the latter manual if that reproduction constitutes the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of the manual.

 

I think this is a good interpretation of the copyright. And I'm happy to hear that.

The full text of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.

Gg1