DOCSLIB.ORG

Open Source Software Paradigm and Intellectual Property Rights

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Open Source Software Paradigm and Intellectual Property Rights Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Vol 17, November 2012, pp 511-520 Open Source Software Paradigm and Intellectual Property Rights Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva† Indian Law Institute, Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi 110 001, India Received 27 March 2012, revised 16 May 2012 Open source software represents a paradigm shift in the field of software development. This new community based software development model, instead of relying on the conventional proprietary model of limited access, invites programmers globally, to freely copy, share, and modify the software. It is a misconception to believe that the general approach of open source software (OSS) towards IP laws and focuses on specific issues that emanate from the interaction of the OSS model with the existing intellectual property rights structure. How IP open source programs are placed in the public domain; they are very much protected by intellectual property laws, but distributed under terms which instead of being restrictive promote access. This way it challenges the established norms of all existing branches of intellectual property. The open source movement necessitates scrutiny; more than just being a new fangled approach, it catalyses debate regarding both the mode of software production and its protection. It is being used to propel arguments to revisit intellectual property jurisprudence. After all, the intention of the intellectual property-software system is to catalyse innovation and ultimately serve the society. How IP impacts on the OSS model and how OSS uses IP in a novel way to achieve its ends are discussed in this article. Keywords: Open source software, intellectual property rights, license, proprietary, copyleft, open patent The institution of open source has its roots in an The open source movement traces its origin to two ethical rebellion of sorts by software programmers academic institutions-the Massachusetts Institute of expressed in the form of sharing source code of Technology and the University of California, computer programs. The cause was subsequently Berkeley. The open source philosophies that evolved taken up by academics and practitioners alike, and at these two institutions, eventually formulated the eventually this model snow balled into a parallel polar factions of the movement represented famously regime in the software development landscape. by the GNU General Public License (GPL) and the Open source software represents a paradigm shift in Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) License. the field of software development. As opposed to the Almost two decades later, Netscape Corporation was generically referred ‘conventional,’ ‘proprietary,’ responsible for creating the third pillar bolstering the ‘closed,’ source code model, the open source software open source movement represented by the Mozilla model emphasizes on unrestricted accessibility to the Public License (MPL). Thus, open source software source code of the program. Also, unlike, proprietary does not simply mean freedom of access to source software, open source code development is not a code. It includes much more depending upon the solitary or a closed group task – it is a community standard setting body spearheading the project. based development model adopting the ‘bazaar style,’ Though acronyms for the entire field of such as opposed to the ‘cathedral’ approach.1 The open software have been developed, viz. ‘Free/Libre/Open source development model is not subject to prejudices Source Software (FLOSS),’ ‘Free/Open Source based on maturity, education or experience. Also, there Software (FOSS),’ ‘OS/FS’ etc., with time, simply the is no need to assemble the community at one physical generic term Open Source Software (OSS) has come place, virtual interaction is sufficient. Thus, the open to encompass the entire field of software based on this source model allows larger groups to interact, and particular mode of software development, whether it increases accessibility to many more resources, while officially falls under the criteria of ‘Open Source’ keeping the transaction costs at a minimal. software or ‘Free Software’ or ‘Libre Software’ or any other.2 Need for correct nomenclature distinction __________ † Email: [email protected] only arises when the licenses are being critically 512 J INTELLEC PROP RIGHTS, NOVEMBER 2012 analysed. In this article too, the term open source and essentially protects the technological expression software has been used in its generic-industry of software. Trademark protection, moral rights and recognized and popularized form as representative of design protection laws along with technological the entire development model. protection measures and licensing too are applied. It is It is a misconception that open source programs are not necessary that all the forms of protection would be placed in the public domain; they are very much exercised with every software; developers may protected by intellectual property laws, but distributed choose to rely on none, some, or all of them.4 under terms which instead of being restrictive Interaction of the traditional intellectual property promote access. This new model of software structure and computer software generated the development, instead of relying on the conventional proprietary model of software development, which proprietary model of limited access, invites was the veritable apotheosis for over two decades. programmers globally, to freely copy, share, and Laments increased that traditional IP protection in modify the software. This way it challenges the software were steadily whittling down the public established norms of all existing branches of domain. The key critique of the traditional manner of intellectual property (IP). application of IPR to software is that it is better suited The open source movement necessitates scrutiny; for protecting, than for facilitating relinquishment of more than just being a new fangled approach, it rights.5 Open source philosophy when applied to catalyses debate regarding both the mode of software software re-imagines the interaction and interpretation production and its protection. It is being used to of various IP laws. propel arguments to revisit IP jurisprudence. After all, the intention of the intellectual property-software Trade Secret Protection system is to catalyse innovation and ultimately serve Trade secret law was favoured in the early phases the society. of computing technology, when software was This article introduces the general approach of OSS individually distributed under tight contractual towards IP laws. It focuses on specific issues that control. However, with technological evolution, it no emanate from the interaction of the OSS model with the longer remained apt or adequate. Though trade secret existing intellectual property rights (IPR) structure. How protection is still used for software, it is no longer its IP impacts on the OSS model and how OSS uses IP in a dominant or sole mode of protection. Open source novel way to achieve its ends are discussed. Thereafter, software furthers this rift; its ideology is in complete this article introduces how OSS propagates its model conflict with trade secret law, thus rendering its through the licensing medium. The essence of application to open source software unfeasible.6-7 development of the OSS model is based on its marked The Free Software Foundation (FSF) considers variance from the proprietary licensing model. Finally, distribution of code as trade secret a violation of the article highlights the scope for complementary GPL.8 In fact, the FSF considers distribution under development of the open source agenda in the light of any type of restrictive agreement like a non-disclosure property rights jurisprudence. 6,8 agreement a violation of the GPL. Thus, it appears Legal Governance Structure of Open Source Software that open source software and trade secrets are in Traditionally, copyright law was available to perpetual conflict.6 However, the GPL allows protect literal and the patent law, mechanical. Being a developing code on a restrictive basis in a client- written work with a utilitarian character, computer developer type software development model.8 Thus programs pose difficulty in categorization in the this is one scenario where trade secrets might still be present library of IP protection.3 Despite the paradox, applicable in the open source software context. Still, the current IP regime, arrived at an accommodation, in such a scenario, the developer would be able to and protects various components of computer harness the open source community only till the software separately. Trade secret law was the period before taking the code as trade secret and any traditional vehicle of software protection; it can inputs thereafter would be curtailed. Hence, there are protect secrets embodied in or implemented through extremely limited possibilities for trade secrets and software. While, copyright chosen as the legislative open source software to co-exist.6 vehicle protects the literal expression of software; Trade secrets in the open source arena have been patent protection for software has grown doctrinally raised in litigation too in Red Hat v SCO, where, Red VASUDEVA: OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE PARADIGM AND IPR 513 Hat sought to obtain a declaratory judgment arguing regards the scope of protection to be afforded to the that Linux being publicly available could not be non-literal elements of a computer program. The protected by trade secrets, and hence, Red Hat had not broader view provides
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Is Software Still Patentable?
    Is Software Still Patentable? The last four years have posed significant hurdles to software patents; nevertheless they continue to be filed and allowed. By James J. DeCarlo and George Zalepa | August 20, 2018 | The Recorder Over the past four years, decisions by the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit, as interpreted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, have had a dramatic effect on software-related inventions. These decisions have focused primarily on what comprises patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and whether a patent’s specification adequately supports the claims. While uncertainty still exists, recent court decisions, coupled with sound prosecution strategies, can be used to bolster a practitioner’s arguments before the USPTO and courts. In Alice v. CLS Bank (2014), the Supreme Court applied the now familiar “two-part test” first laid out in Mayo v. Prometheus (2012). Under this test, a claim is first analyzed to determine if it is “directed to” an abstract idea. If so, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether it recites “significantly more” than the identified abstract idea or just “routine and conventional” elements. This test was (and is) routinely applied to software claims, and the pendulum of patentability for software inventions post-Alice swung firmly towards ineligibility. Nearly all decisions by the Federal Circuit in the immediate aftermath of Alice found claims ineligible. Similarly, the USPTO’s allowance rate in software-related art units plummeted, and many allowed but not yet issued applications were withdrawn by the USPTO. While many cases are representative of this period, the decision in Electric Power Group v.
    [Show full text]
  • Classification of Computer Software for Legal Protection: International Perspectivest
    RAYMOND T. NIMMER* PATRICIA KRAUTHAUS** ARTICLES Classification of Computer Software for Legal Protection: International Perspectivest Computer and software technology are international industries in the full sense of the term. United States and foreign companies compete not only in U.S. markets, but also in the international marketplace. These are new industries created during an era in which all major areas of commerce have obviously international, rather than purely domestic frameworks. The technology industries are viewed as central to national economic development in many countries. However, the technology and products are internationally mobile. They entail an information base that can be recreated in many countries, and is not closely confined by local resources. International protection in this context is highly dependent on reciprocal and coordinated legal constraints. The computer industry deals in new and unique products that have no clear antecedents. Defining the character of international legal protection entails not merely defining a framework for protection of particular products, but also developing frameworks of international technology transfer, information flow, and the like. International patterns of legal protection and classification of computer software serve as a case study of legal policy adaptations to new technologies; undoubtedly, in this era of high technology many more such adaptations will be necessary. In this article, we review the developing patterns of international legal protection for software. This review documents a marked differentiation of technology protection themes. In technologically advanced countries, *Professor of Law, University of Houston, Houston, Texas. **Attorney at Law, Houston, Texas. tThe Editorial Reviewer for this article is Larry D. Johnson. 734 THE INTERNATIONAL LAWYER national decisions about software protection reflect an emerging consen- sus that supports copyright as the primary form of product and technology protection.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyleft, -Right and the Case Law on Apis on Both Sides of the Atlantic 5
    Less may be more: copyleft, -right and the case law on APIs on both sides of the Atlantic 5 Less may be more: copyleft, -right and the case law on APIs on both sides of the Atlantic Walter H. van Holst Senior IT-legal consultant at Mitopics, The Netherlands (with thanks to the whole of the FTF-legal mailinglist for contributing information and cases that were essential for this article) DOI: 10.5033/ifosslr.v5i1.72 Abstract Like any relatively young area of law, copyright on software is surrounded by some legal uncertainty. Even more so in the context of copyleft open source licenses, since these licenses in some respects aim for goals that are the opposite of 'regular' software copyright law. This article provides an analysis of the reciprocal effect of the GPL- family of copyleft software licenses (the GPL, LGPL and the AGPL) from a mostly copyright perspective as well as an analysis of the extent to which the SAS/WPL case affects this family of copyleft software licenses. In this article the extent to which the GPL and AGPL reciprocity clauses have a wider effect than those of the LGPL is questioned, while both the SAS/WPL jurisprudence and the Oracle vs Google case seem to affirm the LGPL's “dynamic linking” criterium. The net result is that the GPL may not be able to be more copyleft than the LGPL. Keywords Law; information technology; Free and Open Source Software; case law; copyleft, copyright; reciprocity effect; exhaustion; derivation; compilation International Free and Open Source Software Law Review Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Pirating in Lacuna
    Beijing Law Review, 2019, 10, 829-838 http://www.scirp.org/journal/blr ISSN Online: 2159-4635 ISSN Print: 2159-4627 Pirating in Lacuna D. S. Madhumitha B.com LLB (Hons), Tamil Nadu National Law University, Tiruchirapalli., India How to cite this paper: Madhumitha, D. S. Abstract (2019). Pirating in Lacuna. Beijing Law Review, 10, 829-838. With development of industries and a welcome to the era of globalization https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2019.104045 along with information technology, many software companies came into be- ing. Tech and tech experts made it easier to pirate the software of the pro- Received: May 31, 2019 Accepted: August 17, 2019 ducers. Problems to the customer as well as to the content owner are present. Published: August 20, 2019 One of major lacunas is the Judiciary being indecisive with the adamant growth of digital world as to the punishment and the reduction of crime, no Copyright © 2019 by author(s) and separate laws by the legislators to protect the software piracy as a distinct Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative crime. Lack of enforcement mechanism by the executive and administrative Commons Attribution International bodies leads to the increase of piracy in software. License (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Keywords Open Access Software, Law, Piracy, Judiciary, Punishment 1. Introduction Software piracy is a theft by both direct and indirect means such as use of soft- ware, copying or distribution of software by illegal means. It is such profitable business that causes heavy losses for the publishers of the software, the result is the inflation in price for the consumer.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Strict Territoriality Toll the End of Software Patents?
    NOTES DOES STRICT TERRITORIALITY TOLL THE END OF SOFTWARE PATENTS? James Ernstmeyer* INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1267 I. UNITED STATES PROTECTION FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SOFTWARE ........................................................................ 1269 A. Defining Software ...................................................................... 1269 B. Copyright Protection for Software ............................................ 1270 C. Patent Protection for Software .................................................. 1272 D. The Backlash Against Intellectual Property Rights in Software ..................................................................................... 1274 E. In re Bilski Turns Back the Clock .............................................. 1278 II. UNITED STATES SOFTWARE PATENTS IN CROSS-BORDER TRADE .... 1280 A. Global Economic Stakes in United States Software Patents ..... 1280 B. Congressional Protection of Patents in Cross-Border Trade ......................................................................................... 1281 C. Extraterritoriality Concerns in Applying § 271(f) to Software Patents ........................................................................ 1283 III. DO PATENTS PROTECT SOFTWARE? – WOULD COPYRIGHTS DO BETTER? ............................................................................................ 1287 A. Effects of the Microsoft v. AT&T Loophole .............................. 1287 B. Combining
    [Show full text]
  • There Is No Such Thing As a Software Patent
    There is no such thing as a software patent 1 Kim Rubin BSEE/CS 45 years technology experience 4 startups 100+ inventions Patent Agent Author Taught computer security Book shelf for patents 2 {picture of file cabinets here} 3 There is no such thing as a software patent 4 7.5 5 7.4 6 7.3 7 There is no such thing as a software patent. There is no such thing as a rubber patent. There is no such thing as a steel patent. There is no such thing as an electricity patent. 8 There is only ... a patent. 9 pro se en banc said embodiment 10 Czapinski v. St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 2000 WI 80, ¶ 19, 236 Wis. 2d 316, 613 N.W.2d 120. v. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), ch. 675, 52 Stat. 1040, as amended, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., iSee 21 U.S.C. § 355(a); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc., 496 U.S. 661, 665—666, 674 (1990). 11 Article I, Section 8 8. “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Inventors the exclusive Right to their Discoveries.” 12 Article I, Section 8 8. “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Inventors the exclusive Right to their Discoveries … except for software.” 13 Jefferson, Congress, SCOTUS and MPEP 3. “The Act embodied Jefferson’s philosophy that ‘ingenuity should receive a liberal encouragement.’ 5 Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 75-76 Washington ed. 1871).
    [Show full text]
  • Prior Art Searches in Software Patents – Issues Faced
    Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Vol 23, November 2018, pp 243-249 Prior Art searches in Software Patents – Issues Faced Shabib Ahmed Shaikh, Alok Khode and Nishad Deshpande,† CSIR Unit for Research and Development of Information Products, Tapovan, S.No. 113 & 114, NCL Estate, Pashan Road, Pune - 411 008, Maharashtra, India Received: 15 November 2017; accepted: 24 November 2018 Prior-art-search is a critical activity carried out by intellectual property professionals. It is usually performed based on known source of literature to ascertain novelty in a said invention. Prior-art-searches are also carried out for invalidating a patent, knowing state of the art, freedom to operate studies etc. In many technological domains such as chemistry, mechanical etc., prior art search is easy as compared to domain such as software. In software domain, prior-art can prove to be a complex and tedious process relying heavily on non-patent literature which acts as a pointer to the current technological trends rather than patent documents. This paper tries to highlight the issues faced by patent professionals while performing prior-art search in the field of software patents. Keywords: Patents, Software patents, World Intellectual Property Organisation, Prior art, Search Issues A patent is a form of intellectual property. It provides The identification of the relevant prior art, comprising exclusionary rights granted by national IP office to an of existing patents and scientific or non-patent inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time literature is important as it has bearing on the quality in exchange for public disclosure of an invention.
    [Show full text]
  • Google Inc. in Response to the PTO's Request for Comments on the Partnership for Enhancement of Quality of Software-Related Patents, Docket No
    From: Suzanne Michel Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 8:40 PM To: SoftwareRoundtable2013 Subject: Submission of Google Inc Please find attached the submission of Google Inc. in response to the PTO's request for comments on the partnership for enhancement of quality of software-related patents, Docket No. PTO-P-2012-0052. If possible, please send an acknowledgment of receipt of the submission. Thank you very much, Suzanne Michel -- Suzanne Michel Senior Patent Counsel, Google [email protected] 202 677- | | | 5398 Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office Alexandria, VA 22313 In re: ) ) Docket No. PTO-P-2012-0052 Request for Comments and Notice ) of Roundtable Events for ) Partnership for Enhancement of ) Quality of Software-Related ) Patents ) ) COMMENTS OF GOOGLE INC. Daryl L. Joseffer Suzanne Michel KING & SPALDING LLP GOOGLE INC. 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 1101 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 737-0500 (650) 253-0000 Adam M. Conrad KING & SPALDING LLP 100 N Tryon Street, Suite 3900 Charlotte, NC 28202 (704) 503-2600 April 15, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 PART II: THE PTO SHOULD APPLY SECTION 112(F) TO MORE PATENTS THAT CLAIM SOFTWARE-IMPLEMENTED INVENTIONS ...........................3 A. Section 112(f) Permits The Use Of Functional Claim Elements Only When The Specification Discloses Sufficient Structure To Limit The Claim To The Applicant’s Actual Invention. ...............................3 1. As A Matter Of Policy And Precedent, Patent Law Has Never Permitted Pure Functional Claiming. .......................................3 2. Congress Enacted Section 112(f) To Permit Functional Claiming Accompanied By Sufficient Disclosures.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee on Development and Intellectual Property
    E CDIP/13/10 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: MARCH 27, 2014 Committee on Development and Intellectual Property Thirteenth Session Geneva, May 19 to 23, 2014 PATENT-RELATED FLEXIBILITIES IN THE MULTILATERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND THEIR LEGISLATIVE IMPLEMENTATION AT THE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL LEVELS - PART III prepared by the Secretariat 1. In the context of the discussions on Development Agenda Recommendation 14, Member States, at the eleventh session of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) held from May 13 to 17, 2013, in Geneva, requested the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to prepare a document that covers two new patent-related flexibilities. 2. The present document addresses the requested two additional patent-related flexibilities. 3. The CDIP is invited to take note of the contents of this document and its Annexes. CDIP/13/10 page 2 Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………...…….….. 3 II. THE SCOPE OF THE EXCLUSION FROM PATENTABILITY OF PLANTS..…….…….…4 A. Introduction……..……………………………………………………………………….….4 B. The international legal framework………………………………………………………. 6 C. National and Regional implementation………………………………………………… 7 a) Excluding plants from patent protection……………………………………........ 8 b) Excluding plant varieties from patent protection………………………………... 8 c) Excluding both plant and plant varieties from patent protection……...……….. 9 d) Allowing the patentability of plants and/or plant varieties……………………… 9 e) Excluding essentially biological processes for the production of plants…….. 10 III. FLEXIBILITIES IN RESPECT OF THE PATENTABILITY, OR EXCLUSION FROM PATENTABILITY, OF SOFTWARE-RELATED INVENTIONS………………………….…….…. 12 A. Introduction………………………………………………………………………….….…12 B. The International legal framework………………………………………………………13 C. National implementations……………………………………………………………….. 14 a) Explicit exclusion …………………………………………………………………. 14 b) Explicit inclusion…………………………………………………………………... 16 c) No specific provision……………………………………………………………… 16 D.
    [Show full text]
  • Fifty Years of Open Source Movement: an Analysis Through the Prism of Copyright Law
    FIFTY YEARS OF OPEN SOURCE MOVEMENT: AN ANALYSIS THROUGH THE PRISM OF COPYRIGHT LAW V.K. Unni* I. INTRODUCTION The evolution of the software industry is a case study in itself. This evolution has multiple phases and one such important phase, termed open source, deals with the manner in which software technology is held, developed, and distributed.1 Over the years, open source software has played a leading role in promoting the Internet infrastructure and thus programs utilizing open source software, such as Linux, Apache, and BIND, are very often used as tools to run various Internet and business applications.2 The origins of open source software can be traced back to 1964–65 when Bell Labs joined hands with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and General Electric (GE) to work on the development of MULTICS for creating a dynamic, modular computer system capable of supporting hundreds of users.3 During the early stages of development, open source software had a very slow beginning primarily because of some preconceived notions surrounding it. Firstly, open source software was perceived as a product of academics and hobbyist programmers.4 Secondly, it was thought to be technically inferior to proprietary software.5 However, with the passage of time, the technical issues got relegated to the backside and issues pertaining to copyright, licensing, warranty, etc., began to be debated across the globe.6 * Professor—Public Policy and Management, Indian Institute of Management Calcutta; Thomas Edison Innovation Fellow (2016–17), Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason University School of Law. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • How Electric Power Group Case Is Affecting Software Patents by Michael Kiklis (August 19, 2019)
    This article was originally published by Law360 on August 19, 2019. How Electric Power Group Case Is Affecting Software Patents By Michael Kiklis (August 19, 2019) Many commentators predicted the end of software patents after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International decision. Software patent practitioners therefore applauded when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stated in 2016’s Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp. decision that “claims directed to software, as opposed to hardware, are [not] inherently abstract.”[1] But soon thereafter, our optimism waned when the Federal Circuit in Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA found that data gathering, analysis and display is an abstract idea, thus rendering many software inventions abstract.[2] In fact, the Federal Circuit is recently applying Electric Power Group more Michael Kiklis frequently and has even expanded its use to find that “entering, transmitting, locating, compressing, storing, and displaying data”[3] and “capturing and transmitting data from one device to another” are abstract ideas.[4] Many software inventions — such as artificial intelligence systems — gather data, analyze that data and perform some operation that usually includes displaying or transmitting the result. Electric Power Group and its progeny therefore pose a serious risk to software inventions, including even the most innovative ones. Knowing how to avoid Section 101 invalidity risk from these cases is therefore critical. This article provides strategies for doing so. The Problem With Being Abstract Alice holds that if a claim is directed to an abstract idea and it does not recite an inventive concept, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Patenting Software Is Wrong
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 58 Issue 2 Article 7 2007 Manuscript: You Can't Patent Software: Patenting Software is Wrong Peter D. Junger Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Peter D. Junger, Manuscript: You Can't Patent Software: Patenting Software is Wrong, 58 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 333 (2007) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol58/iss2/7 This Tribute is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. MANUSCRIPT* YOU CAN'T PATENT SOFTWARE: PATENTING SOFTWARE IS WRONG PeterD. Jungert INTRODUCTION Until the invention of programmable' digital computers around the time of World War II, no one had imagined-and probably no one could have imagined-that methods of solving mathematical . Editor'sNote: This article is the final known manuscript of Professor PeterJunger. We present this piece to you as a tribute to Professor Junger and for your own enjoyment. This piece was not, at the time of ProfessorJunger 's passing, submitted to any Law Review or legal journal.Accordingly, Case Western Reserve University Law Review is publishing this piece as it was last edited by Professor Junger, with the following exceptions: we have formatted the document for printing, and corrected obvious typographical errors. Footnotes have been updated to the best of our ability, but without Professor Junger's input, you may find some errors.
    [Show full text]