AFFID Systemes designs and publishes accounting software and electronic transmission.

AFFID Systemes - Crunchbase Company Profile & Funding

Affid Systèmes accompagne les médecins libéraux dans la gestion économique de leur cabinet médical en offrant des solutions ouvertes mobiles et modulaires.

Affid Systèmes

Affid Systèmes | 545 abonnés sur LinkedIn. Solutions pour sécuriser les revenus des professionnels de santé libéraux (logiciels client lourd, SaaS, lecteurs) | Acteur historique et reconnu du monde de la santé en France, Affid Systèmes a été fondé il y a plus de 30 ans.

Affid Systèmes | LinkedIn

Affid Systemes à Sceaux Conseils, services, maintenance en informatique : adresse, photos, retrouvez les coordonnées et informations sur le professionnel

Affid Systemes Sceaux - Maintenance et services informatique (adresse)

Search company, investor... ... Analyst Briefing Submitters are 7x more likely to receive a qualified connection. Learn more. ... Affid Systemes focuses its activity on publishing application software for liberal healthcare professionals, from the development of Electronic Treatment Sheets ...

Affid Systemes - Products, Competitors, Financials, Employees, ...

The latest tweets from Affid Systèmes (@AffidSystemes)

Affid Systèmes (@AffidSystemes) / X

30 Juin 2021 - En intégrant le groupe Olaqin, Affid Systèmes entre sereinement dans l’ère de la mobilité et de l’e-santé ... Tél. : 01.46.60.87.40 - email : affid@wanadoo.fr

AFFID Systèmes - Accueil

1 billion members | Manage your professional identity. Build and engage with your professional network. Access knowledge, insights and opportunities.

AFFID SYSTEMES - LinkedIn

AFFID SYSTEMES SURESNES (92150) RCS, SIREN, SIRET, bilans, statuts, chiffre d&#x27;affaires, dirigeants, cartographie, alertes, annonces lgales, enqutes, APE, NAF, TVA intracommunautaire

AFFID SYSTEMES (SURESNES) Chiffre d'affaires, rsultat, bilans sur ...

Affid Systèmes | Suresnes

Obtenez le numéro de téléphone AFFID SYSTEMES . Nous vous fournissons les informations de contact vous permettant d&#x27;appeler AFFID SYSTEMES par téléphone.

AFFID SYSTEMES - Entreprises

Découvrez Affid Systemes (10 av Camberwell, 92330 Sceaux) avec toutes les photos du quartier, le plan d&#x27;accès, les avis et les infos pratiques : horaires, ...

Affid Systemes - Conseil, services et maintenance informatique, ...

With this new transaction, DDA &amp; Company has completed its eighth transaction in the software sector in 2021, after being a buy-side advisor on 3 acquisitions for Graitec, a sell-side advisor for Invoke, Extens’ advisor on the restructuring of Coptis ownership, Olaqin’s advisor on the acquisition of Affid Systèmes ...

DDA & Company advises All Systems shareholders on the sale to Baelen ...

Acteur historique et reconnu du monde de la santé en France, Affid Systèmes a été fondé il y a plus de 30 ans.

Qui sommes-nous ? - Affid Systèmes

The company AFFID SYSTEMES, founded in 1990, which operates in the Electronic data processing - software industry. It is based in Sceaux, France.

AFFID SYSTEMES, Electronic data processing - software - Europages

Affid Systemsis in the Healthcare IT Industry

Affid Systems

Oracle vs. Google (2014) Court Filing, retrieved on May 9, 2014, is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 11 of 16. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here 2. The Structure, Sequence, and Organization of the API Packages The district court found that the SSO of the Java API packages is creative and original, but nevertheless held that it is a “system or method of operation . . . and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted” under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). Copyrightability Decision, 872 F. Supp. 2d at 976-77. In reaching this conclusion, the district court seems to have relied upon language contained in a First Circuit decision: Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995), aff’d without opinion by equally divided court, 516 U.S. 233 (1996).[9] In Lotus, it was undisputed that the defendant copied the menu command hierarchy and interface from Lotus 1- 2-3, a computer spreadsheet program “that enables users to perform accounting functions electronically on a computer.” 49 F.3d at 809. The menu command hierarchy referred to a series of commands—such as “Copy,” “Print,” and “Quit”—which were arranged into more than 50 menus and submenus. Id. Although the defendant did not copy any Lotus source code, it copied the menu command hierarchy into its rival program. The question before the court was “whether a computer menu command hierarchy is copyrightable subject matter.” Id. Although it accepted the district court’s finding that Lotus developers made some expressive choices in selecting and arranging the command terms, the First Circuit found that the command hierarchy was not copyrightable because, among other things, it was a “method of operation” under Section 102(b). In reaching this conclusion, the court defined a “method of operation” as “the means by which a person operates something, whether it be a car, a food processor, or a computer.” Id. at 815.[10] Because the Lotus menu command hierarchy provided “the means by which users control and operate Lotus 1-2-3,” it was deemed unprotectable. Id. For example, if users wanted to copy material, they would use the “Copy” command and the command terms would tell the computer what to do. According to the Lotus court, the “fact that Lotus developers could have designed the Lotus menu command hierarchy differently is immaterial to the question of whether it is a ‘method of operation.’” Id. at 816. (noting that “our initial inquiry is not whether the Lotus menu command hierarchy incorporates any expression”). The court further indicated that, “[i]f specific words are essential to operating something, then they are part of a ‘method of operation’ and, as such, are unprotectable.” Id. On appeal, Oracle argues that the district court’s reliance on Lotus is misplaced because it is distinguishable on its facts and is inconsistent with Ninth Circuit law. We agree. First, while the defendant in Lotus did not copy any of the underlying code, Google concedes that it copied portions of Oracle’s declaring source code verbatim. Second, the Lotus court found that the commands at issue there (copy, print, etc.) were not creative, but it is undisputed here that the declaring code and the structure and organization of the API packages are both creative and original. Finally, while the court in Lotus found the commands at issue were “essential to operating” the system, it is undisputed that—other than perhaps as to the three core packages—Google did not need to copy the structure, sequence, and organization of the Java API packages to write programs in the Java language. More importantly, however, the Ninth Circuit has not adopted the court’s “method of operation” reasoning in Lotus, and we conclude that it is inconsistent with binding precedent.[11] Specifically, we find that Lotus is inconsistent with Ninth Circuit case law recognizing that the structure, sequence, and organization of a computer program is eligible for copyright protection where it qualifies as an expression of an idea, rather than the idea itself. See Johnson Controls, 886 F.2d at 1175-76. And, while the court in Lotus held “that expression that is part of a ‘method of operation’ cannot be copyrighted,” 49 F.3d at 818, this court—applying Ninth Circuit law—reached the exact opposite conclusion, finding that copyright protects “the expression of [a] process or method,” Atari, 975 F.2d at 839. We find, moreover, that the hard and fast rule set down in Lotus and employed by the district court here— i.e., that elements which perform a function can never be copyrightable—is at odds with the Ninth Circuit’s endorsement of the abstraction-filtration-comparison analysis discussed earlier. As the Tenth Circuit concluded in expressly rejecting the Lotus “method of operation” analysis, in favor of the Second Circuit’s abstraction-filtrationcomparison test, “although an element of a work may be characterized as a method of operation, that element may nevertheless contain expression that is eligible for copyright protection.” Mitel, 124 F.3d at 1372. Specifically, the court found that Section 102(b) “does not extinguish the protection accorded a particular expression of an idea merely because that expression is embodied in a method of operation at a higher level of abstraction.” Id. Other courts agree that components of a program that can be characterized as a “method of operation” may nevertheless be copyrightable. For example, the Third Circuit rejected a defendant’s argument that operating system programs are “per se” uncopyrightable because an operating system is a “method of operation” for a computer. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240, 1250-52 (3d Cir. 1983). The court distinguished between the “method which instructs the computer to perform its operating functions” and “the instructions themselves,” and found that the instructions were copyrightable. Id. at 1250-51. In its analysis, the court noted: “[t]hat the words of a program are used ultimately in the implementation of a process should in no way affect their copyrightability.” Id. at 1252 (quoting CONTU Report at 21). The court focused “on whether the idea is capable of various modes of expression” and indicated that, “[i]f other programs can be written or created which perform the same function as [i]n Apple’s operating system program, then that program is an expression of the idea and hence copyrightable.” Id. at 1253. Notably, no other circuit has adopted the First Circuit’s “method of operation” analysis. Courts have likewise found that classifying a work as a “system” does not preclude copyright for the particular expression of that system. See Toro Co. v. R & R Prods. Co., 787 F.2d 1208, 1212 (8th Cir. 1986) (rejecting the district court’s decision that “appellant’s parts numbering system is not copyrightable because it is a ‘system’” and indicating that Section 102(b) does not preclude protection for the “particular expression” of that system); see also Am. Dental Ass’n v. Delta Dental Plans Ass’n, 126 F.3d 977, 980 (7th Cir. 1997) (“A dictionary cannot be called a ‘system’ just because new novels are written using words, all of which appear in the dictionary. Nor is word-processing software a ‘system’ just because it has a command structure for producing paragraphs.”). Here, the district court recognized that the SSO “resembles a taxonomy,” but found that “it is nevertheless a command structure, a system or method of operation—a long hierarchy of over six thousand commands to carry out pre-assigned functions.” Copyrightability Decision, 872 F. Supp. 2d at 999-1000.[12] In other words, the court concluded that, although the SSO is expressive, it is not copyrightable because it is also functional. The problem with the district court’s approach is that computer programs are by definition functional—they are all designed to accomplish some task. Indeed, the statutory definition of “computer program” acknowledges that they function “to bring about a certain result.” See 17 U.S.C. § 101 (defining a “computer program” as “a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result”). If we were to accept the district court’s suggestion that a computer program is uncopyrightable simply because it “carr[ies] out pre-assigned functions,” no computer program is protectable. That result contradicts Congress’s express intent to provide copyright protection to computer programs, as well as binding Ninth Circuit case law finding computer programs copyrightable, despite their utilitarian or functional purpose. Though the trial court did add the caveat that it “does not hold that the structure, sequence and organization of all computer programs may be stolen,” Copyrightability Decision, 872 F. Supp. 2d at 1002, it is hard to see how its method of operation analysis could lead to any other conclusion. While it does not appear that the Ninth Circuit has addressed the precise issue, we conclude that a set of commands to instruct a computer to carry out desired operations may contain expression that is eligible for copyright protection. See Mitel, 124 F.3d at 1372. We agree with Oracle that, under Ninth Circuit law, an original work—even one that serves a function—is entitled to copyright protection as long as the author had multiple ways to express the underlying idea. Section 102(b) does not, as Google seems to suggest, automatically deny copyright protection to elements of a computer program that are functional. Instead, as noted, Section 102(b) codifies the idea/expression dichotomy and the legislative history confirms that, among other things, Section 102(b) was “intended to make clear that the expression adopted by the programmer is the copyrightable element in a computer program.” H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 54, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5670. Therefore, even if an element directs a computer to perform operations, the court must nevertheless determine whether it contains any separable expression entitled to protection. On appeal, Oracle does not—and concedes that it cannot—claim copyright in the idea of organizing functions of a computer program or in the “package-class-method” organizational structure in the abstract. Instead, Oracle claims copyright protection only in its particular way of naming and organizing each of the 37 Java API packages.[13] Oracle recognizes, for example, that it “cannot copyright the idea of programs that open an internet connection,” but “it can copyright the precise strings of code used to do so, at least so long as ‘other language is available’ to achieve the same function.” Appellant Reply Br. 13-14 (citation omitted). Thus, Oracle concedes that Google and others could employ the Java language—much like anyone could employ the English language to write a paragraph without violating the copyrights of other English language writers. And, that Google may employ the “package-class-method” structure much like authors can employ the same rules of grammar chosen by other authors without fear of infringement. What Oracle contends is that, beyond that point, Google, like any author, is not permitted to employ the precise phrasing or precise structure chosen by Oracle to flesh out the substance of its packages—the details and arrangement of the prose. As the district court acknowledged, Google could have structured Android differently and could have chosen different ways to express and implement the functionality that it copied.[14] Specifically, the court found that “the very same functionality could have been offered in Android without duplicating the exact command structure used in Java.” Copyrightability Decision, 872 F. Supp. 2d at 976. The court further explained that Google could have offered the same functions in Android by “rearranging the various methods under different groupings among the various classes and packages.” Id. The evidence showed, moreover, that Google designed many of its own API packages from scratch, and, thus, could have designed its own corresponding 37 API packages if it wanted to do so. Given the court’s findings that the SSO is original and creative, and that the declaring code could have been written and organized in any number of ways and still have achieved the same functions, we conclude that Section 102(b) does not bar the packages from copyright protection just because they also perform functions. [9] The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Lotus, but, shortly after oral argument, the Court announced that it was equally divided and that Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. The Court therefore left the First Circuit’s decision undisturbed. See Lotus, 516 U.S. at 233-34. [10] The Lotus majority cited no authority for this definition of “method of operation.” [11] As Oracle points out, the Ninth Circuit has cited Lotus only one time, on a procedural issue. See Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942, 954 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Lotus for the proposition that delay “has been held permissible, among other reasons, when it is necessitated by the exhaustion of remedies through the administrative process . . . when it is used to evaluate and prepare a complicated claim”). [12] This analogy by the district court is meaningful because taxonomies, in varying forms, have generally been deemed copyrightable. See, e.g., Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp. v. Am. Med. Ass’n, 121 F.3d 516, 517-20 (9th Cir. 1997); Am. Dental, 126 F.3d at 978-81. [13] At oral argument, counsel for Oracle explained that it “would never claim that anyone who uses a package-class-method manner of classifying violates our copyright. We don’t own every conceivable way of organizing, we own only our specific expression—our specific way of naming each of these 362 methods, putting them into 36 classes, and 20 subclasses.” Oral Argument at 16:44. [14] Amici McNealy and Sutphin explain that “a quick examination of other programming environments shows that creators of other development platforms provide the same functions with wholly different creative choices.” Br. of McNealy and Sutphin 17. For example, in Java, a developer setting the time zone would call the “setTimeZone” method within the “DateFormat” class of the java.text package. Id. Apple’s iOS platform, on the other hand, “devotes an entire class to set the time zone in an application—the ‘NSTimeZone’ class” which is in the “Foundation framework.” Id. at 17-18 (noting that a “framework is Apple’s terminology for a structure conceptually similar to Java’s ‘package’”). Microsoft provides similar functionality with “an entirely different structure, naming scheme, and selection.” Id. at 18 (“In its Windows Phone development platform, Microsoft stores its time zone programs in the ‘TimeZoneInfo’ class in its ‘Systems’ namespace (Microsoft’s version of a ‘package’ or ‘framework’).”). Again, this is consistent with the evidence presented at trial. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 10-CV-3561 retrieved on September 22, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. law.justia.com

Oracle Concedes it Cannot Claim Copyright in the Idea of Organizing Functions of a Computer Program

Diablo 4 was released to significant expectations. It was seen as a potential return to form for Blizzard, after the disastrous rollout of Overwatch 2, the failure of Warcraft 3 Reforged, and the spluttering decline of World of Warcraft, there has been very little in the last decade that Blizzard can point to as successes. While the game received initial praise for its gameplay loop and itemization, it has become clear that the core gameplay loop is barebones, minimal, and cannot sustain a healthy population. Especially insofar as Blizzard’s stated motivation for maintaining Diablo 4 as a Game-as-a-Service. Twitch viewership numbers support this. had 937,000 peak viewers at launch and has dwindled to just 3,600 today. There is simply no appetite for long-term commitment to Diablo 4. There's nothing to watch. There's no hard content, there's no endgame, there's no loot-hunt and, as a consequence, there’s no interest anymore as seen in the . Diablo 4 player-count figures Diablo 4 Simply Doesn’t have the Gameplay Loop to Support a Dedicated Playerbase It’s difficult to understand, and perhaps Diablo fans simply have to acknowledge at this point, that Blizzard never really had a plan for Diablo 4. Even according to Blizzard’s own for the game, things have gone wrong. stated objectives We went from plans for sets, one-per-character Mythics, Runewords, relevant blue items via expanded affix ranges, low-level uniques with one-of-a-kind appearances, multiple legendaries , skill/passive rank affixes that let you skip multiple nodes in the skill tree (now a twig), attributes mattering and changing how your skills behave, etc. per skill What happened in the last 3 years to cause everything to be stripped away and replaced with: sifting through mountains of Yellow items to find vulnerable and critical modifiers, ignoring legendaries once you have a few well-rolled aspects, barely any uniques with most being unusable. We will only know in the future after the inevitable documentary is released what went wrong behind the scenes. Diablo 4 Monetization has been Fumbled With Diablo 4’s stated monetization model being that of a GaaS, the release of its Battle Pass, and the expectation that it would follow industry convention as far as player rewards, was hoped to stem the the decline in player interest. That has not been the case. With the start of Season 1, and it's already not looking positive for player feedback. Players have discovered that the pass offers a Platinum payout of 666 Platinum, an amount that’s not enough to make a single purchase in the in-game store, let alone afford the next BattlePass, which is a common standard amongst all Battle Pass available games, such as Apex Legends, or Fortnite. Blizzard seems to fundamentally misunderstand the industrial psychology behind how Battle Passes encourage player-retention, these namely being: The concept of sunk cost plays a significant role here. Players who have invested time and effort into a battle pass feel more compelled to continue in order to "recoup" their investment. This often leads them to spend more money to reach completion, even if it doesn't make financial sense. Sunk Cost Fallacy: The battle pass system's promise of getting more in-game rewards than the initial cost is a powerful incentive. Players perceive that they are getting a good deal, especially when they think they've made their money back. Perceived Value: The use of premium in-game currency creates a psychological separation from real money. When players are spending virtual currency, they might not feel the financial impact as strongly as when they use real currency, encouraging more spending. In-Game Currency: The sense of progression and the achievement of completing challenges or levels in a battle pass are highly motivating factors. Players often want to "finish what they started," leading them to spend money to ensure they don't miss out on rewards. Progression and Achievement: Seeing others with battle pass rewards can create a social pressure to participate and match others' progress. This drives more purchases to keep up with friends or the wider community. Community and Social Influence: The battle pass model provides gaming companies with a steady stream of revenue throughout its duration. This predictable income allows companies to plan and invest in the game's ongoing development. Predictable Revenue: All of these factors are to the company’s benefit when a player fails to complete a Battle Pass, it does not mean , which simply causes players to abandon the game altogether - which is what Blizzard has done in the case of Diablo 4. reducing the rewards of completing the Battle Pass itself The End of the Road for Blizzard? Diablo 4's release, amidst a backdrop of heightened expectations and eager fans, was met with initial applause but has since failed to maintain its momentum. The lack of a robust gameplay loop, coupled with controversial decisions around its monetization strategies, has raised questions regarding Blizzard's vision and direction for the game. In an era where player retention and sustained engagement are paramount, especially for games adopting the GaaS model, the dwindling numbers for Diablo 4 serve as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between player satisfaction and revenue generation. As the game finds itself in an uncertain trajectory, the gaming community and industry at large will be keenly watching Blizzard's next steps, hoping for a resurrection of its former glory or at least, a blueprint of lessons to be learned for future game developments.

AFFID SYSTEMS

affid.fr

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

AFFID SYSTEMS

EVERGREEN INDEX #1091

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Affid Systems WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

AFFID SYSTEMS

affid.fr

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

AFFID SYSTEMS

EVERGREEN INDEX #1091

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT AFFID SYSTEMS

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Affid Systems WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!