16th apr, 2012

Language is Copyright Enigma

Sometimes you come across legal issues which will really challenge you. Originally that was how I got interested in patents and their relations to software. This Sunday afternoon I stumbled across another subject which easily could keep me entertained for hours.
Some would point out that encountering such subjects that require hours of pondering and researching is a sign of weakness of the current IP system. I would argue that a legal system cannot hope to contain a literal description of all possible problems and the analysis of new angles is unavoidable.
But to the case in point: Is language copyrightable?
Oracle and Google are involved in a long running legal battle over Android and Java – one of the issues is whether Java as a language is copyrightable.
On one side there is Oracle arguing that a language, especially a programming language is copyrightable because it has a specified effect. On the other side there is Google claiming that a language – including programming languages – are the medium of expression and therefore not protected. Google points to Na’vi and Dothraki as literary languages (Avatar and Game of Thrones) not protected by copyright.
In a European context I have sympathy for both arguments. On one hand the requirements in European copyright law are met  (there is an author, a creative effort and the creation is new). On the other hand the language is a container for works – as argued by Google.
I tend to support Oracle on this how about you?

Posted by: Beyer

Categories:

Responses

Predictably the artificial-monopoly-maximalist, eh?

So a better question is: Do we as citizens have any interest in artificially limiting multiple implementation of programming languages? Do we think we are in the risk of a programming language under-supply situation if we don’t?

By: Anders on april 19th, 2012
at 21:55

I may be predictable, or maybe it is a sign that the law is predictable…which is a good thing.

Actually when it comes to copyright im a minimalist in disguise…but thats a whole other story.

Help me understand better: is there a difference between say Klingon (a fictional spoken language) and Java (a functional language)?

But I see your point…protecting a language could be compared to Picasso creating Cubism. He created a framework for creating new works.

By: Beyer on april 20th, 2012
at 06:51

Minimalist in disguise? You hide it extremely well.

And yes, of course there is a multitude of differences between Java and Klingon – in usefullness, usage, area of use etc.

And I stil think the interesting question is: “Do we as citizens have any interest in artificially limiting multiple implementation of programming languages? Do we think we are in the risk of a programming language under-supply situation if we don’t?”

However, I am very happy to note this decidedly non-“monopoly-maximalist” statement from the Court of Justice of the European Union.

“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.”

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-05/cp120053en.pdf

By: Anders on maj 2nd, 2012
at 19:53

Hm, what happened to your last comment?

By: Anders on juni 26th, 2012
at 21:02

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories