SAS declared victory in its long legal battle with Britain`s World Programming Limited after the Supreme Court ruled to uphold a preliminary injunction upheld by a U.S. federal district court in 2017. SAS has also made efforts to combat WPL through the U.S. legal system, where a North Carolina jury ruled in favor of SAS in 2015 [PDF], specifically for breach of contract, claiming WPL violated SAS`s license agreement and committed fraud. The British company was ordered to pay SAS a total of $79 million in compensation, offset by a tripling of direct losses of approximately $26 million. I can and have – and besides, such „cumbersome legal tones on my part in networks are not necessary.” By refusing to hear the case, the Supreme Court gave WPL no additional legal recourse to lift the injunction against new sales in the United States. WPL also remains responsible for paying the $79 million price to SAS. I mean, you can say that, but it`s not a quote from many cumbersome legal books that show your historical position, whereas it is, to quote books that show that the courts or the judiciary refuse to engage, especially after the mid-1800s, when it was increasingly understood that it was a power. that has been abused. Can you give a valid reason why a particular area of innovation should be deprived of the legal protection afforded to any innovation? Claire Blewett, general counsel for World Programming, said: Perhaps hoping the third time would be charm, SAS sued WPL in Texas in 2018 for patent and copyright infringement.
SAS`s patent claims were dismissed with prejudice, and in 2020, SAS again lost its copyright claims. However, SAS has decided to appeal only the copyright claims. Since SAS has included patent claims in the case, the copyright claim will be handled by the United States. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The federal circuit is supposed to focus almost exclusively on patent matters, but a party can ensure that its copyright claims are heard by simply including patent claims at the beginning of litigation and dropping them later. This tactic means that a legal theory about software copyright that has lost in three courts in two countries will get another hearing. Altair responded, „The only pending legal case is the appeal SAS filed with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals after losing the copyright claims it had asserted in SAS`s 2018 lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas. We await the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. „I mean, you can say that, but it`s not a citation to many cumbersome legal volumes” But since the sine qua non of an API is its functionality, the realization that it cannot be expressive and violated is the correct legal result. ® Malcolm is Malcolm returns with the same decrepit script from before his more „Sabbatical” year.
He lost in the British courts. She tried again with European judges, but lost again in 2012. The late French judge, Advocate General Yves Bot, wrote in his 2011 opinion [PDF] that software functions could not be protected by copyright. „To accept that a feature of a computer program can be protected as such would be to monopolize ideas to the detriment of technical progress and industrial development. The Court of Appeal added: „But WPL cannot participate in the US market, violate US law and expect to avoid the consequences of its conduct. This is what has hardened in the fires of reality for hundreds of years. I agree with you, the question then is, what is this „nature”? And the courts made it clear that this was not the nature that people suspected (franchise/ownership). Again, Congress could fix this problem, but it didn`t. Again, it`s in Congress. If they want to make it a „property” that is „unauthorized,” then they can.
Right now, it is simply a patent or a letter patent that creates a cause of action in one courthouse to exclude others, with the courts deciding which remedies others ignore. Only Congress can change it, I`m afraid, brother. There is simply no redress by legal capital changes, etc. For SAS, it`s not over. He told The Reg: „Altair has paid the balance of the judgment of $79 million and the injunction has been lifted accordingly. And some people have made random logical extensions. But it`s like saying, oh, you can`t protect the chapter titles of the book because they refer to a broader chapter, but all the words refer to things, so you can`t protect anything by copyright. Sure.
But it`s ridiculous, so we can draw lines and do it. That is what we are going to do here. No one thought it was a copyright infringement or an intellectual property infringement of any kind. And it was good for innovation. „But bruh, it was recognized literally centuries before you were born.” The next big software copyright case is before the federal circuit in the form of SAS Institute, Inc. v. World Programming Limited, Docket No. 21-1542.
The dispute has important parallels with Google v. Oracle, but could lead to a different result. In Google, the Supreme Court found fair use, but did not rule on the copyright issue. This problem is paramount in this case.