Open Source und Kartellrecht

„Open source and European antitrust laws: An analysis of copyleft and the prohibition of software license fees on the basis of art. 101 TFEU and the block exemptions“ Open source software and open source licenses (like the GNU GPL) are not only relevant for computer nerds or activists – they are already business. They are for example the fundament of LINUX, the only real rival of MICROSOFT’s WINDOWS-line in the field of operating systems for IBM PC compatibles. Art. 101 TFEU (like the identical predecessor art. 81 TEC) as part of the EU antitrust laws prohibits contract terms like price fixing and some forms of technology control. Are copyleft – the „viral effect“, the „cancer“ – and the interdiction of software license fees in the cross hairs of this legal rule? On the other side the European Union has since 2004 a new Technology Transfer Block Exemption with software license agreements for the first time in its scope: a safe harbour and a dry place under a umbrella for open source software? After the introduction (A) with a description of open source software the following text analyses the system of the European Unions competition law respectivley antitrust law and the requirements of the block exemptions (B). Starting point of antitrust analysis are undertakings – but who are the untertakings (C) in the field of widespread, independent developers as part of the „bazar organization“? To see how much open source has to fear from the law of the European Union, at the end the anti competitive and pro competitive effects of open source are totalized within the legal framework (D). The conclusion (E) shows: not nothing, but not much.

Internet Service Providers Liability in Spain

The article focuses on the current situation of Spanish case law on ISP liability. It starts by presenting the more salient peculiarities of the Spanish transposition of the safe harbours laid down in the E-Commerce Directive. These peculiarities relate to the knowledge requirement of the hosting safe harbour, and to the safe harbour for information location tools. The article then provides an overview of the cases decided so far with regard to each of the safe harbours. Very few cases have dealt with the mere conduit and the caching safe harbours, though the latter was discussed in an interesting case involving Google’s cache. Most cases relate to hosting and linking safe harbours. With regard to hosting, the article focuses particularly on the two judgments handed down by the Supreme Court that hold an open interpretation of actual knowledge, an issue where courts had so far been split. Cases involving the linking safe harbour have mainly dealt with websites offering P2P download links. Accordingly, the article explores the legal actions brought against these sites, which for the moment have been unsuccessful. The new legislative initiative to fight against digital piracy – the Sustainable Economy Bill – is also analyzed. After the conclusion, the article provides an Annex listing the cases that have dealt with ISP liability in Spain since the safe harbours scheme was transposed into Spanish law.

Google face à la justice française et belge Nouvelles décisions en matière de droit d’auteur

Internet Service Providers’ liability for copyright infringement is a debated issue in France and Belgium, particularly with respect to intermediaries such as providers of hyperlinks and location tool services for which the e-commerce directive does not set explicitly any exemption from liability. Thus, the question arises among other things whether the safe harbour provisions provided for in respect of caching and hosting also could apply to search engines. French and Belgian Courts had recently to decide on this issue in several cases concerning Google’s complementary tools such as Google Videos, Google Images, Google Suggest and Google News. This article seeks to give a summary of and to assess this recent case law.