ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "SAS ruling by EU Court of Justice on 2 May 2012"
({{navbox}} There is no ruling yet in ECJ case '''C-406/10''', '''SAS Institute v. World Programing Ltd''', and the case deals with an alleged copyright infringement, not a patent infringement, how) |
(* [www.bristows.com/assets/documents/Opinion%20of%20Advocate%20General%20Bot%20-%20SAS.pdf OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL, delivered on 29 November 2011, Case C-406/10]) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
| − | + | 57. To accept that a functionality of a computer program can be protected as such would amount to making it possible to monopolise ideas, to the detriment of technological progress and industrial development. | |
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
| − | + | * [www.bristows.com/assets/documents/Opinion%20of%20Advocate%20General%20Bot%20-%20SAS.pdf OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL, delivered on 29 November 2011, Case C-406/10] | |
* [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/29/us-court-copyright-sasinstitute-idUSTRE7AS0QO20111129 EU court adviser: copyright doesn't protect software functions], 29 Nov 2011, '''Reuters''' | * [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/29/us-court-copyright-sasinstitute-idUSTRE7AS0QO20111129 EU court adviser: copyright doesn't protect software functions], 29 Nov 2011, '''Reuters''' | ||
** [http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/11/29/165236/eu-court-adviser-says-software-ideas-cant-be-copyrighted Slashdot discussion] | ** [http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/11/29/165236/eu-court-adviser-says-software-ideas-cant-be-copyrighted Slashdot discussion] | ||
Revision as of 00:35, 30 November 2011
There is no ruling yet in ECJ case C-406/10, SAS Institute v. World Programing Ltd, and the case deals with an alleged copyright infringement, not a patent infringement, however, the ECJ's Advocats General (the court's legal advisory body) has made interesting comments.
Excerpts with implications for patents
57. To accept that a functionality of a computer program can be protected as such would amount to making it possible to monopolise ideas, to the detriment of technological progress and industrial development.
External links
- [www.bristows.com/assets/documents/Opinion%20of%20Advocate%20General%20Bot%20-%20SAS.pdf OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL, delivered on 29 November 2011, Case C-406/10]
- EU court adviser: copyright doesn't protect software functions, 29 Nov 2011, Reuters
