Software Directive
Software Directive
The above principles are reflected in the Software Directive of 2009 (amending the earlier Directive 91/250/EEC), which includes the following Recitals:
Recital (6):
“The Community's legal framework on the protection of computer programs can accordingly in the first instance be limited to establishing that Member States should accord protection to computer programs under copyright law as literary works and, further, to establishing who and what should be protected, the exclusive rights on which protected persons should be able to rely in order to authorise or prohibit certain acts and for how long the protection should apply.”
Recital (7):
“For the purpose of this Directive, the term ‘computer program’ shall include programs in any form, including those which are incorporated into hardware. This term also includes preparatory design work leading to the development of a computer program provided that the nature of the preparatory work is such that a computer program can result from it at a later stage.”
Recital (10):
“The function of a computer program is to communicate and work together with other components of a computer system and with users and, for this purpose, a logical and, where appropriate, physical interconnection and interaction is required to permit all elements of software and hardware to work with other software and hardware and with users in all the ways in which they are intended to function. The parts of the program which provide for such interconnection and interaction between elements of software and hardware are generally known as ‘interfaces’. This functional interconnection and interaction is generally known as ‘interoperability’; such interoperability can be defined as the ability to exchange information and mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.”
Recital (11):
“For the avoidance of doubt, it has to be made clear that only the expression of a computer program is protected and that ideas and principles which underlie any element of a program, including those which underlie its interfaces, are not protected by copyright under this Directive. In accordance with this principle of copyright, to the extent that logic, algorithms and programming languages comprise ideas and principles, those ideas and principles are not protected under this Directive. In accordance with the legislation and case-law of the Member States and the international copyright conventions, the expression of those ideas and principles is to be protected by copyright.”
Recital (13):
“The exclusive rights of the author to prevent the unauthorised reproduction of his work should be subject to a limited exception in the case of a computer program to allow the reproduction technically necessary for the use of that program by the lawful acquirer. This means that the acts of loading and running necessary for the use of a copy of a program which has been lawfully acquired, and the act of correction of its errors, may not be prohibited by contract. In the absence of specific contractual provisions, including when a copy of the program has been sold, any other act necessary for the use of the copy of a program may be performed in accordance with its intended purpose by a lawful acquirer of that copy.”
Recital (14):
“A person having a right to use a computer program should not be prevented from performing acts necessary to observe, study or test the functioning of the program, provided that those acts do not infringe the copyright in the program.”
Recital (15):
“The unauthorised reproduction, translation, adaptation or transformation of the form of the code in which a copy of a computer program has been made available constitutes an infringement of the exclusive rights of the author. Nevertheless, circumstances may exist when such a reproduction of the code and translation of its form are indispensable to obtain the necessary information to achieve the interoperability of an independently created program with other programs. It has therefore to be considered that, in these limited circumstances only, performance of the acts of reproduction and translation by or on behalf of a person having a right to use a copy of the program is legitimate and compatible with fair practice and must therefore be deemed not to require the authorisation of the rightholder. An objective of this exception is to make it possible to connect all components of a computer system, including those of different manufacturers, so that they can work together. Such an exception to the author's exclusive rights may not be used in a way which prejudices the legitimate interests of the rightholder or which conflicts with a normal exploitation of the program.”
Recital (16):
“Protection of computer programs under copyright laws should be without prejudice to the application, in appropriate cases, of other forms of protection. However, any contractual provisions contrary to the provisions of this Directive laid down in respect of decompilation or to the exceptions provided for by this Directive with regard to the making of a back-up copy or to observation, study or testing of the functioning of a program should be null and void.”
Article 1 of the Software Directive sets out the general provision for copyright protection for computer programs:
“1. In accordance with the provisions of this Directive, Member States shall protect computer programs, by copyright, as literary works within the meaning of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. For the purposes of this Directive, the term ‘computer programs’ shall include their preparatory design material.
2. Protection in accordance with this Directive shall apply to the expression in any form of a computer program. Ideas and principles which underlie any element of a computer program, including those which underlie its interfaces, are not protected by copyright under this Directive.”
Article 4 of the Software Directive sets out the protected rights of the copyright owner of a computer program:
“1. Subject to the provisions of Articles 5 and 6, the exclusive rights of the rightholder within the meaning of Article 2 shall include the right to do or to authorise:
(a) the permanent or temporary reproduction of a computer program by any means and in any form, in part or in whole; in so far as loading, displaying, running, transmission or storage of the computer program necessitate such reproduction, such acts shall be subject to authorisation by the rightholder;
(b) the translation, adaptation, arrangement and any other alteration of a computer program and the reproduction of the results thereof, without prejudice to the rights of the person who alters the program;
(c) any form of distribution to the public, including the rental, of the original computer program or of copies thereof.”
Article 5 provides specific exceptions to the protection afforded by the Directive:
“1. In the absence of specific contractual provisions, the acts referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 4(1) shall not require authorisation by the rightholder where they are necessary for the use of the computer program by the lawful acquirer in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error correction.
2. The making of a back-up copy by a person having a right to use the computer program may not be prevented by contract in so far as it is necessary for that use.
3. The person having a right to use a copy of a computer program shall be entitled, without the authorisation of the rightholder, to observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program if he does so while performing any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program which he is entitled to do.”
A further exception is set out in Article 6:
“1. The authorisation of the rightholder shall not be required where reproduction of the code and translation of its form within the meaning of points (a) and (b) of Article 4(1) are indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) those acts are performed by the licensee or by another person having a right to use a copy of a program, or on their behalf by a person authorised to do so;
(b) the information necessary to achieve interoperability has not previously been readily available to the persons referred to in point (a); and
(c) those acts are confined to the parts of the original program which are necessary in order to achieve interoperability.
2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not permit the information obtained through its application:
(a) to be used for goals other than to achieve the interoperability of the independently created computer program;
(b) to be given to others, except when necessary for the interoperability of the independently created computer program; or
(c) to be used for the development, production or marketing of a computer program substantially similar in its expression, or for any other act which infringes copyright.
3. In accordance with the provisions of the Berne Convention for the protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the provisions of this Article may not be interpreted in such a way as to allow its application to be used in a manner which unreasonably prejudices the rightholder's legitimate interests or conflicts with a normal exploitation of the computer program.”
Article 8 precludes the use of contractual terms and conditions to override or circumvent the exceptions in Articles 5(2) and 5(3):
“Any contractual provisions contrary to Article 6 or to the exceptions provided for in Article 5(2) and (3) shall be null and void.”
- Heading
- Mrs Justice O’Farrell
- Section II - Background to the dispute
- The SDM
- Hercules
- Neon litigation
- Formation of LzLabs and Winsopia
- The ICA
- SDM development and the clean room procedures
- Launch of the SDM
- Project Eiger
- Further development of the SDM
- Audit request and termination
- Section III - The proceedings
- The Issues
- The factual witnesses
- Section IV - Construction of the ICA
- Approach to construction of the ICA
- Scope of licence
- The ICA Programs
- Customer applications
- Licensed Program Specifications
- Independent software vendors (ISVs)
- Debugging tools
- Restrictions on use of ICA Programs
- Legislative framework
- Berne Convention
- TRIPS
- WIPO
- Software Directive
- Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA)
- Applicable legal principles
- Conclusions on ICA
- Section V - Alleged breaches of the ICA
- Disassembly, decompilation and translation
- Item 2: Load Module Decompiler (“the LMD”) (Paragraph 11.2 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 3: CICS Control Blocks Document (Paragraph 11.3 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 4: EXEC DLI (Paragraphs 27.18 & 28.19 of RRRAPOC)
- Item 5: IBM Binder Software (Paragraph 11.4 of the Technical Particulars)
- Compiler listings – summary of the dispute
- Item 6: IGZCIVL COBOL runtime module (Paragraph 11.6 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 7: CICS Translators (Paragraph 20.1-2 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 8: Floating point rounding rules (Paragraph 20.3 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 9: IBM PL/1 compiler (Paragraph 20.4 of the Technical Particulars & Paragraph 27 of the POC)
- Item 10: XML Parse statements (Paragraphs 33-38 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 11: COBOL initialisation, branching and I/O declaratives (Paragraphs 27.4&27.5 RRRAPOC)
- Item 12: PL/I Condition handling (Paragraphs 27.10-27.12 of RRRAPOC)
- Reverse engineering through the systematic use of traces, dumps, slip traps, packet sniffing and other debugging tools techniques – summary of the dispute
- Item 13: CICS-to-CICS communications (Paragraph 28.1 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 14: AMBLIST analysis of CICS Stubs (Paragraph 28.2 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 15: Colesoft z/XDC and COBOL initialisation (Paragraph 28.3 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 16: XDC and IMS (Paragraph 28.4 of the Technical Particulars)
- Additional examples
- Item 17: SLIP Traps and CICS (Paragraph 28.5 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 18: SLIP Traps and COBOL (Paragraph 28.6 of the Technical Particulars)
- Macros and Copybooks - introduction
- Macros (Paragraphs 32.1-32.9 of the Technical Particulars) – summary of the dispute
- Item 19: DR-3246 (Paragraph 32.1 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 20: DR-10237 (Paragraph 32.2 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 21: DR-2753 (Paragraph 32.3 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 22: DR-2771 (Paragraph 32.4 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 23: DR-2796 (Paragraph 32.5 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 24: DR-3280 (Paragraph 32.6 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 25: DR-4281 (Paragraph 32.7 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 26: DR-4322 (Paragraph 32.8 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 27: DR-0847 (Paragraph 32.9 of the Technical Particulars)
- Macros - discussion
- Copybooks (Paragraphs 2.1.1.3 and 32.10-32.12 of the Technical Particulars) – nature of the dispute
- Item 28: DR-715 (Paragraph 32.10 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 29: DR-753 (Paragraph 32.11 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 30: DR-756 (Paragraph 2.1.1.3 of the Technical Particulars)
- Copybooks - discussion
- Transferring “unscrubbed” materials
- Item 31:Epiphany
- Item 32: Db2 Catalog table metadata
- Item 33: DSS dump
- Item 34: Kednos
- Item 35: CSECTs deliberately omitted from scrubbing
- Items 36 and 42: Unscrubbed CSECTs
- Items 37 and 40: IMS PROCLIB & DLIBATCH
- Item 38: DFHEI1 module
- Item 39: IGZXANE
- Item 41: IGZXNE3N
- Item 43: CEEBETBL, CEEBLLST, IBMPINPL & CEESG*
- Item 44: DR-4617
- Item 45: DR-171
- Item 46: Scrubbing failures
- Item 47: @@TRGLOC CSECT
- Item 48: PARMLIB & PROCLIB
- Use outside Enterprise and beyond Designated Machine
- Item 49: Brad Taylor (Paragraph 44.2 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 50: Winsopia Pizzabox (Paragraph 44.5 of the Technical Particulars)
- Item 51: Justin Bendich (Paragraph 44.6 of the Technical Particulars)
- Conclusions on technical breaches
- Section VI - Wrongful procurement of breach
- Applicable legal principles
- LzLabs
- LzLabs UK
- Claims against the directors
- Mr Moores
- Summary on unlawful procurement
- Section VII - Unlawful means conspiracy
- Applicable legal principles
- Knowledge of unlawfulness
- Summary on unlawful means conspiracy
- Section VIII – Audit and Termination
- Validity of audit request
- Validity of termination
- Section IX - Limitation
- Contractual limitation
- Statutory Limitation
- Deliberate concealment
- Finding - section 32(1)(b)
- Finding - Section 32(2)
- Actual or constructive knowledge – legal principles
- Date of knowledge issues
- ICA 2013
- Mr Knight - 2017
- Mr Anzani - 2018
- Conclusions
![HT-2021-000363 - [2025] EWHC 532 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png)