Polish IP & IT law » open standards

Archive for: open standards

E-promulgation of Polish law

January 5th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Act of 10 September 2009 on amending the Law on the promulgation of normative acts and some other legal acts, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2009, No 190 item 1473, came into force on 1 January 2010. According to the amendments, the Journal of Laws and the Polish Monitor or normative acts and other legal acts contained in them, including judgments, are made available freely for inspection and to download in the form of an electronic document from the website of the Government Legislative Center.

The minister responsible for informatization will also determine, by a regulation, the technical requirements to be met by electronic documents addressed for the announcement, containing normative acts and other acts, including judgments, taking into account the need to preserve the unity of supplied electronic documents and their possible transformation for the issue of the official journal.

It is out now!

July 14th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

My dear readers. All P.T. readers. I would like to draw your attention to the International Free and Open Source Software Law Review. It is an absolutely free publication on legal aspects of free and open source software. The first issue is available for download (both HTML or PDF versions) directly from its website. There, you’ll find couple of interesting articles. In particular, I recommend Shane Coughlan’s and Andrew Martin Katz’s article titled “Introducing the Risk Grid“. I will also immodestly mention that from the very beginning I was involved in the creation of the IFOSS L. Rev. and I am currently a member of the editorial board. Of course, I invite everyone to write for his periodical. Please do not hesitate to submit your papers.

There is another “Polish theme” in the IFOSS L. Rev. Great logotype and covers for the journal were created pro bono by my good friend Tomasz Politański.

Skype gives up

May 9th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Skype has withdrawn the appeal against a judgment in the case LG München I, Az. 7 O 5245/07 – Welte/Skype, unpublished. Harald Welte has written more details.

The various arguments by Skype supporting their claim that the GPL is violating German anti-trust legislation as well as further claims aiming at the GPL being invalid or incompatible with German legislation were not further analyzed by the court.

The argument that GPL violates anti-trust law was already discussed before the US courts in the case Wallace v. IBM, 467 F.3d 1104 (7th Cir. 2006). Chief Judge Frank Hoover Easterbrook wrote explicitly:

The GPL and open-source software have nothing to fear from the antitrust laws.

Categories: US law | computer law | copyright law | open standards.

To disclose or not to disclose?

February 27th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Federico Biancuzzi wrote an article entitled “The Laws of Full Disclosure” which is available at securityfocus.com website. There is a little part where he asked me some questions regarding Polish and European legal regimes.

Access to public information, case OSK 600/04

September 12th, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

ISOC Poland requested the President of the Social Insurance Institution – ZUS – (in Polish: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to make available public information concerning technical specification of the KSI MAIL format, that is used in Płatnik software. Płatnik computer program is a free but not open source software to use (fill in and send) a statement of payment declarations to the Social Insurance Institution. It works only with MS Windows.

The President of ZUS ruled that the Polish Act of 13 October 1998 on the social insurance system, consolidated text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2007 No. 11, item 74 as amended, obliges payers of social insurance to prepare documents including inter alia protected data, for instance sensitive data concerning health, in the electronic format and to transmit of such documents from Płatnik to ZUS. These data are personal data protected by law. Making them available could result in significant disruption in the supply KSI MAIL system, exposing to a breach of professional secrecy of ZUS and undermine the statutory exclusivity of the software provided by ZUS.

Regardless of the abovementioned arguments, ZUS stated that KSI MAIL module is subject to business confidentiality and trade secrets due to the greement conducted between ZUS and Prokom Software S.A. on the design and implementation of a comprehensive system for social security. The agreement obliged ZUS to keep confidential all information relating to the transferred technology and solutions contained in KSI MAIL.

ZUS based its final decision on article 5 of the the Polish Act of 6 September 2001 on access to public information – API – (in Polish: Ustawa o dostępie do informacji publicznej) Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 112, item 1198, with later amendments.

Article 5. 1. The right to public information is subject to limitation to the extent and on the principles defined in the provisions on the protection of confidential information and on the protection of other secrets being statutorily protected.
2. The right to public information is subject to limitation in relation to privacy of a natural person or the secret of an entrepreneur. The limitation does not relate to the information on persons performing public functions, being connected with performing these functions, including the conditions of entrusting and performing these functions and in the event when a natural person or entrepreneur resigns from the right to which he was entitled to.
3. The access to public information on matters resolved before the state authorities, in particular in the administrative, criminal or civil proceedings cannot be limited, with the stipulation of it. 1 and 2, with respect to protection of the party’s interest, if the proceedings concern the public authorities or other entities performing public functions or persons performing public functions – in the scope of these functions or tasks.
4. The limitations of access to information on cases, defined in it. 3, do not breach the right to information on organisation and work of the bodies conducting proceedings, in particular on time, mode and place and the order of investigating cases.

ISOC filed a complaint before the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw. It emphasized that the technical specification of KSI MAIL is public information. Its publication broadens the possibility of fulfilling the duties of citizens who do not wish to invest in MS Windows.

ISOC further argued that ZUS can not rely on contractual provisions, as it was contrary to the mandatory provisions of the API and that they are invalid. Also, ZUS made an erroneous interpretation of the law to rely on business secrets and trade secrets, because ISOC did not request the source code of the program, or other works protected by copyright or industrial property rights/patents.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its order of 30 January 2004 case file II SA 3732/03 held that this request concerns matters that are not subject to the administrative jurisdiction, but the civil courts which is in accordance with the provisions of article 22(1) of the API.

Article 22.
1. The entity, which was denied the access to the public information in respect to its exclusion of its openness when quoting the protection of personal data, the right to privacy and the secret other than state, official, treasury or statistical secret, is entitled to put an action to the court for making such information available.
2. The entity, to which the exclusion of public information is related, has a legal interest in commencing as an accidental intervener on the defendant’s side.
3. The competent court for resolving the cases, defined in it. 1, is the district court with respect to the seat of the entity, which refused to make the public information available.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 3 March 2004 case file OSK 600/04 stated that the cassation complaint is unfounded and declared that, the term “when quoting” as used in article 22(1) of the API, has such meaning that it is sufficient for the entity who posses requested information to invoke the mentioned in this provision object of protection, to exclude the possibility of control by an administrative court. The administrative court cannot control in this case the legality of the decision and investigate if the indicated condition actually occurred.

Tax law, case file PB3/GM-8213-12/06/144

May 21st, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

In the letter of 10 March 2006, file PB3/GM-8213-12/06/144, published in Biuletyn Skarbowy of 2006, no 2, pp. 21-22, the Undersecretary of State of the Ministry of Finance gave the official interpretation regarding tax consequences associated with the use of free software programs, addressed to the Directors of all the Tax Offices and Chambers. This letter was issued in order to ensure uniform application of the law under article 14 § 1 point 2 of the Tax Code, to convey an explanation of article 12(1) point 2 of the Polish Act of 15 February 1992 on legal persons’ income tax – LPIT (in Polish: Ustawa o podatku dochodowym od osób prawnych) consolidated text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2000, No. 54, item 654 with subsequent amendments, on the tax consequences associated with the use of free software.

Art. 12. [General notion of revenue] 1. Revenues, subject to paragraphs 3 and 4 and Articles 13 and 14, shall be, in particular:
2) the value of things or rights received free of charge or partially free of charge, as well as the value of other free-of-charge or partially free-of-charge performances, with the exception of performances linked with utilization of fixed assets received by budgetary establishments, subsidiary undertakings of budgetary entities, public utility companies 100% owned by local government bodies or their associations from the State Treasury, local government units or their association for gratuitous management or use;

In many cases during the economic activity, taxpayers benefit for purposes of the activities of the publicly available and free of charge computer programs that are available for instance via the Internet for all users. Although most of the software for these operating systems is free, however there are exceptions in the form of commercial software. The rule, however, is that the use of such programs are not related to any fees for their purchase, or license fees.

Provision of Article 12(1) point 2 of the Legal Persons Income Tax recognizes as revenues, the value of obtained free-of-charge or the value of partially free-of-charge things and rights.

However, article 12 (5 – 6a) of the Legal Persons Income Tax sets, the value of unpaid or partially-paid performances and the value of free or partially-free acquired things or rights, which are the subject of income tax.

5. The monetary value of things or rights received free of charge shall be determined in accordance with market prices applicable in trading of things or rights of the same type and quality, in particular taking into account their condition, degree of wear, as well as the time and place of obtaining them.

5a. The value of partially paid for things or rights constituting taxpayer’s revenues shall be the difference between the value of those things or rights, determined in accordance with the principles laid down in paragraph 5, and the consideration paid by the taxpayer. The provision of Article 14.3 shall apply, as appropriate.

6. The value of gratuitous performances shall be determined in the following manner:
1) if the performance concerns services included in the commercial activities of the performing party – at prices applied to other recipients;
2) if the performance concerns purchased services – at purchasing prices;
3) if the performance concerns letting the use of premises – at the equivalent of the rent that would have been due under a potential lease contract for those premises;
4) in other cases – in accordance with market prices applied in the performance of services or letting the use of things or rights of the same type and quality, taking into account their condition, degree of wear, as well as the time and place of letting them for use.

6a. The value of partially paid for performances constituting taxpayer’s revenues shall be the difference between the value of those performances, determined in accordance with the principles laid down in paragraph 6, and the consideration paid by the taxpayer. The provision of Article 14.3 shall apply, as appropriate.

The provision of article 12(1) point 2 of the legal persons Income Tax should be taken together with article 12(6) of the LPIT, which defines how the value of income from unpaid performances is determined. This is established case-by-case. For instance it may be:

the price charged to other customers – if a subject of a performance are services being a part of the business of an entity that is making the performance,
the market price that is used for the same kind of rights, taking into consideration, in particular, degree of wear, as well as the time and place of letting them for use – other than those referred to aticle 12(6) points 1-3 of the LPIT.

In the case of rights obtained free of charge, the income is determined on the basis of prices used in the market turnover of rights of the same kind, in particular, their condition and degree of use and the time and place of such use. Tax law provisions establishing the value of tax revenue for the free performances received, do not foresee a situation where appropriate performance is free for all stakeholders.

Article 12(6) of the LPIT includes cases in which there is an opportunity to compare the value of gratuitous performances to other pecuniary performances that were made by the taxpayer. The possibility of determining the value of “comparable” performances of given kind, in the case of the free software that is available to all on equal (free-of-charge/gratuitous) basis, can not be performed, and thus there is no basis for determining the value of income.

If certain performances (including the transfer of rights) are inherently free-of-charge to all taxpayers, and not an individual case that would be applicable to the individual entity, it is not allowed to establish tax revenues in connection with the occurrence of such events, as referred to article 12(1) point 2 of the LPIT.

This does not mean, however, that in assessing the possible tax consequences associated with the use of such software, there is no need to examine all the circumstances connected with it. Each case therefore requires individual analysis.

These explanation of the tax consequences associated with the use of the free software, apply as appropriate to taxpayers of income tax of individuals engaged in non-agricultural economic activity (art. 14 ust. 2 pkt 8 ustawy o podatku dochodowym od osób fizycznych).