Ipr In Licensing Of Simulation Software.
IPR IN LICENSING OF SIMULATION SOFTWARE
1. What is Simulation Software?
Simulation software replicates real-world systems digitally, such as:
Flight simulators
Engineering and CAD/CAE simulators
Medical simulators
Financial or weather modeling tools
These programs involve high R&D investment, so companies rarely sell them outright. Instead, they license them while retaining ownership.
2. Intellectual Property Rights Involved
Simulation software is protected under multiple IP regimes:
(a) Copyright
Protects source code and object code
Protects structure, sequence, and organization
Protects manuals, UI layouts, and databases
(b) Trade Secrets
Algorithms
Mathematical models
Simulation logic and parameters
(c) Patents (in some jurisdictions)
Novel simulation techniques
Data processing methods (subject to patentability rules)
3. Nature of Software Licensing (Key Concept)
In simulation software:
User gets a license, not ownership
Licenses may restrict:
Number of users
Hardware usage
Reverse engineering
Commercial exploitation
This distinction between sale vs license is the heart of most disputes.
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS
CASE 1: Autodesk Inc. v. Vernor (2010, USA)
Facts:
Autodesk developed AutoCAD, a sophisticated engineering simulation and design software.
Vernor bought used copies of AutoCAD and resold them on eBay.
Autodesk claimed:
AutoCAD was licensed, not sold
Resale violated the license agreement
Legal Issue:
Does buying a software copy give ownership rights under the first sale doctrine?
Court’s Reasoning:
The court examined the license agreement, which:
Retained ownership with Autodesk
Imposed strict usage conditions
Prohibited transfer
Because of these restrictions, the transaction was a license, not a sale.
Judgment:
Autodesk retained copyright
Vernor was not allowed to resell
First sale doctrine did not apply
Relevance to Simulation Software:
Simulation software vendors:
Prevent resale of expensive licenses
Enforce seat-based or machine-based usage
This case strengthened licensors’ control over simulation tools.
CASE 2: SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Ltd. (2013, EU)
Facts:
SAS Institute developed statistical simulation software used for data modeling.
World Programming:
Studied SAS behavior
Created compatible software without copying source code
SAS claimed copyright infringement.
Legal Issue:
Are functional behavior and programming language protected by copyright?
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court of Justice of the EU held:
Ideas, algorithms, and functionality are not copyrightable
Only expression (code) is protected
Judgment:
No infringement
Observing program behavior to develop compatible software is lawful
Relevance to Simulation Software:
Competitors may:
Develop alternative simulation engines
Mimic outputs and behavior
As long as code is independently written
This limits monopolies over simulation logic.
CASE 3: Bowers v. Baystate Technologies (2003, USA)
Facts:
Baystate reverse-engineered CAD simulation software.
License agreement explicitly prohibited reverse engineering.
Baystate argued:
Reverse engineering is allowed under copyright law
Legal Issue:
Can a license override statutory rights?
Court’s Reasoning:
The court upheld:
Contract law prevails if parties agree
License terms are enforceable even if copyright law allows otherwise
Judgment:
Reverse engineering ban was valid
Baystate was liable for breach of license
Relevance to Simulation Software:
Simulation licenses commonly prohibit:
Reverse engineering
Benchmarking
Decompiling algorithms
This case validates such restrictions.
CASE 4: MDY Industries v. Blizzard Entertainment (2010, USA)
Facts:
MDY created a bot for Blizzard’s simulation-based online game.
Blizzard claimed:
Bot violated the End User License Agreement (EULA)
Hence copyright infringement
Legal Issue:
Does violating a license condition automatically equal copyright infringement?
Court’s Reasoning:
The court distinguished:
License conditions (affect copyright)
Contractual covenants (only breach of contract)
Only conditions tied directly to copyright trigger infringement.
Judgment:
Bot use breached contract
Not all breaches amount to copyright infringement
Relevance to Simulation Software:
Users of simulation tools:
May breach license terms
But infringement applies only if core IP rights are affected
This limits excessive enforcement by licensors.
CASE 5: Jacobsen v. Katzer (2008, USA)
Facts:
Jacobsen released simulation-related software under an open-source license.
Katzer used it without complying with license conditions.
Legal Issue:
Are open-source license terms enforceable under copyright law?
Court’s Reasoning:
The court held:
Open-source licenses impose conditions
Violation equals copyright infringement
Judgment:
License conditions enforceable
Copyright remedies available
Relevance to Simulation Software:
Many simulators (robotics, physics engines):
Use open-source components
Must strictly comply with license obligations
CASE 6: UsedSoft GmbH v. Oracle (2012, EU)
Facts:
Oracle licensed enterprise software.
UsedSoft resold “used” licenses.
Legal Issue:
Does exhaustion apply to downloaded software?
Court’s Reasoning:
If:
License is perpetual
Fee equals sale price
Then exhaustion applies, even for digital copies.
Judgment:
Resale allowed in EU
Relevance to Simulation Software:
In Europe:
Perpetual simulation licenses may be resold
Vendors now prefer subscription models
4. Key Legal Principles Emerging
License ≠ Sale
Contract terms can override default copyright rights
Functionality and algorithms are not copyrightable
Reverse engineering can be contractually prohibited
Open-source licenses are legally binding
Jurisdiction matters (US vs EU)
5. Conclusion
Simulation software licensing is shaped by copyright law, contract law, and judicial interpretation. Courts generally favor:
Protecting developers’ IP
Enforcing license agreements
Allowing interoperability and competition
For high-value simulation tools, licensing is the legal backbone that ensures commercial control while balancing innovation.
RELATED Blog
comments