DOCSLIB.ORG

Software Patentability: European Answer.”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Software Patentability: European Answer.” FACULTY OF LAW University of Lund Master’s Programme of Human Rights and Intellectual Property Rights Law Author: Ganna Dyachenko Title: “Software patentability: European Answer.” Master thesis 20 points Supervisor: Professor Mpazi Sinjela Field of study: Copyright & Industrial Property Law Semester: 3rd Lund, Sweden December 2004 Contents Summary ........................................................................................................4 Abbreviations .................................................................................................7 1 Introduction.................................................................................................8 2 Current copyright protection for computer programs ...............................11 International legislative developments of copyright protection..............11 Berne Convention and TRIPS Agreement..........................................11 WIPO study: copyright or sui generis ................................................13 WIPO Model Provisions on the protection of Computer Programs ...14 WIPO Copyright Treaty .....................................................................14 Regional legislation ............................................................................16 EC Computer directive............................................................................16 Non-functional elements.....................................................................18 Reverse engineering............................................................................21 The Right to Observe, Study and Test ............................................23 Decompilation. Exception to Infringement ....................................24 Reverse Engineering & the Law of Confidence .............................26 An Exhaustive Regime of the Directive..........................................27 Conclusions .............................................................................................28 3 Current patent protection for computer programs.....................................31 Development of legislation of patent protection .....................................32 International legislation of patent protection......................................33 Development of European patent legislation......................................34 General requirements of EPC .................................................................36 Exclusions...........................................................................................37 Technical character of invention. Exclusion ‘as such’ ..................39 Technical effect ..............................................................................40 Technical consideration & technical problem involved ................42 The use of technical means ............................................................43 Other requirements .............................................................................43 Assessing novelty............................................................................44 Determining inventive step.............................................................46 Conclusions .............................................................................................47 4 Prehistory of draft Directive......................................................................49 Green paper.............................................................................................49 Consultations...........................................................................................50 Proposed for Directive ............................................................................52 Main purpose...........................................................................................53 Present position regarding the Draft ......................................................54 2 5 Draft Directive ..........................................................................................57 Substantial part .......................................................................................57 Technical contribution........................................................................58 Political considerations...........................................................................62 What is Linux?....................................................................................63 Suits against Linux .............................................................................63 Finals .......................................................................................................65 Supplement A...............................................................................................67 Bibliography.................................................................................................78 Table of cases...............................................................................................86 3 Summary This paper attempts to analyse the legal protection of software in Europe and reviews the current legislative developments in the European Union (EU), particularly with regard to the European Council (EC) draft directive for patentability of software-implemented inventions. It analyses the current EU legislation and considers how the proposed Directive improves such legislation and also points to the problematic areas of the proposed draft. With the approach of trying to cover both copyright and patent protection, the paper emphasises the main issues concerning each type of protection, starting with the most significant historical development in the field. While describing the major points of concern, some cases were referred to as well as decisions of Technical Board of Appeal of European Patent Office. The main sources cited are web-based. Considering that the USA practise in this field is the most developed, some references were to its practice. However, this attempt was only made to show the differences in the legislation between the two regions. Due to lack of space, it was not possible to go into greater detail in the analysis of the comparisons of the two regions. For this reason, a discussion regarding the advantages and disadvantages patent protection of software as such was avoided. Although, many disputes have arisen about the need for patent protection for computer programs, a deep discussion regarding this issue was also not taken up, as it would take up much space. Preference was made instead to concentrate on a discussion of the substantive legal issues. This was also for the belief that this part of the work could be better accomplished than undertaking an analysis of an economic or politic nature. The second chapter considers legislation on copyright protection of software. It attempts to give a detailed analysis of how computer programs are protected under the terms of the European Council Directive on the legal protection of computer programs (91/250) (Computer Program Directive). The special point of interest was a distinction made between functional and non-functional elements of a program and how copyright law protects them. Other important issues discussed concern actions that are permitted in connection of use of the software without the authorisation of the right holder. These relate, in particular, to a decompilation of computer program; the conditions such actions are deemed as legal and the problems related to such actions. The third chapter deals with patent protection of software in Europe, particularly under the European Patent Convention (EPC, 1973). Since in the text of the EPC software are excluded from patentable subject matters, but only if “referred to only to the extent to which a European patent application relates to such subject matter or activities as such” there is a problem in treating software as patentable subject matter as such and thus there is already a number of European patents issued on software and business method. Furthermore, case practice has developed confirming that 4 patents granted to software shall constitute an invention with a technical character. According to the case law, a technical character may, for example, be present due to the fact that: a technical effect is achieved by the claimed subject-matter; technical considerations are required to carry out the claimed subject-matter; a technical problem is solved by the claimed subject matter; or the claimed subject-matter is explicitly or at least implicitly defined by concrete, technical means. Taking into account the existence of the different approaches regarding the protection of one product, and the controversial issues concerning every type of protection, coupled with the current shift in the software industry regarding the protection of computer programs under patent law and simultaneous discussion of the value of patent protection for software as such, the Draft directive on patentability on computer-implemented inventions has raised many discussions. Therefore, an attempt was made to analyze the Directive and compare its development in the present legal field. First, attention was paid to solving the problem of the requirement of ‘technical character’ of new software to be patented. In this regard, the requirement of its definition in Article 2(b) that the technical contribution should be “non-obvious” is confusing. Article 4 states that an “inventive step” (equivalent to non-obviousness) must involve a “technical contribution” and to then state in Article 2 (b) that this technical contribution must itself be non-obvious
Load more

Recommended publications
  • European Practice for Overseas Attorneys
    European Practice for Overseas Attorneys European patent law differs in some significant aspects from the law in other countries, in particular the United States. This note sets out some important features of European patent law to remember when preparing patent applications for Europe. For more detailed drafting tips, see our briefing note"Drafting Patents for Europe". Novelty Claiming priority According to European patent law, an invention is considered The European rules on claiming priority are in accordance new if it has not been made available to the public anywhere with the Paris Convention, so that priority can be claimed in the world before the priority date of the patent application. within one year of the first regular national filing in a An invention is "made available to the public" if knowledge Convention country. If a second priority application is filed of the claimed features of the invention was available to any and the European application is filed within one year of the person who was not under an obligation to keep the invention second but not the first application, priority is lost for matter confidential. which was in the first priority application, and it has the date of the European filing only. This most commonly occurs A novelty-destroying disclosure can be in any form, for when the second application is a Continuation-in-Part (CIP) example an oral description or a public display of the relevant application and can be very serious if there is a European features of the invention, as well as printed publications. (or PCT) application corresponding to the US parent, as this This means that public prior use of the invention anywhere in will be at least novelty-only prior art.
    [Show full text]
  • Freebsd Opengroupware - English
    FreeBSD OpenGroupware - English FreeBSD As Basis For OpenGroupware.org PostgreSQL As Database FreeBSD can currently look back on a history of over 30 PostgreSQL, like BSD, originated at the University of Ca- years. It originated at the University of Berkeley and lifornia and is also distributed under the BSD license. It's FreeBSD evolved over a few intermediate steps into the project one of the oldest and most advanced object-relational founded in 1993 called FreeBSD. The supported architec- database management systems (ORDBMS) in the realm tures are the following: i386, amd64, Alpha, Itanium, of free software and looks back on a development of OpenGroupware.org SPARC, PPC (Mac) and others. over 15 years. PostgreSQL is largely conforming to the FreeBSD has very good support for multiprocessor sys- SQL92/SQL99 standards, that means that all functions in The ideal solution for professional the standards are available and behave as defined; that tems (SMP) and is distributed under the BSD license team communication on the Internet, which grants the user nearly every freedom and is free is not always the case with some commercial and non- commercial SQL database systems. of cost. Apart from having to name the origins of the with FreeBSD and PostgreSQL code, the user may use it in any which way he or she pleases. FreeBSD is a gift to humanity, we are pleased when you use it! FreeBSD has not only got many features, it also has a What is a groupware solution? huge amount of free and open software in its so-called Ports Collection.
    [Show full text]
  • A Mission Impossible? an Assessment of the Historical and Current Approaches Mauricio Troncoso
    Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review Volume 17 | Issue 2 Article 3 International Intellectual Property Scholars Series: European Union Patents: A Mission Impossible? An Assessment of the Historical and Current Approaches Mauricio Troncoso Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr Part of the Intellectual Property Commons Repository Citation Mauricio Troncoso, International Intellectual Property Scholars Series: European Union Patents: A Mission Impossible? An Assessment of the Historical and Current Approaches, 17 Intellectual Property L. Rev. 231 (2013). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr/vol17/iss2/3 This International Intellectual Property Scholars Series is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TRONCOSO FORMATTED FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 5/24/2013 1:09 PM INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SCHOLARS SERIES* EUROPEAN UNION PATENTS: A MISSION IMPOSSIBLE? AN ASSESSMENT OF THE 1 HISTORICAL AND CURRENT APPROACHES MAURICIO TRONCOSO** I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 233 II. THE FIRST APPROACHES ........................................................................... 233 A. Original Design ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The European Patent Convention, 3 Md
    Maryland Journal of International Law Volume 3 | Issue 2 Article 10 The urE opean Patent Convention Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil Part of the International Law Commons, and the International Trade Commons Recommended Citation The European Patent Convention, 3 Md. J. Int'l L. 408 (1978). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil/vol3/iss2/10 This Notes & Comments is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION The European Patent Convention' (EPC) is an attempt to simplify European patent law. The Convention provides a procedure for securing a single, European patent,2 which has the effect of a national patent in the signatory nations designated in the application. Through this alternative to national procedures, widespread patent coverage should be easier to obtain. Require- patent, however, are rigorous and its ments for a European 3 attraction is primarily the consolidation of the grant procedures. The EPC establishes several organs to handle the various aspects of the patent application procedure. The European Patent Office (EPO), located in Munich, is the international equivalent of a national patent office. Its administrative divisions are the General Search Division, the Examining Division, and the Opposition Division. The Receiving Section is at The Hague. The first procedural step is the filing of an application at either a national patent office or directly with the EPO.4 The application may be in any of the three official languages (English, French, or German) and the applicant's choice becomes the language of the proceedings.5 The Receiving Section subjects the application to both a preliminary6 and a supplementary formal examination to determine whether it is in proper form and all fees are paid.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Unified Patent Court: the Next Rocket-Docket for Patent Owners?
    ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law Landslide Magazine March/April 2016 Understanding the Unified Patent Court: The Next Rocket-Docket for Patent Owners? By Kevin R. Greenleaf, Michael W. O’Neill, and Aloys Hüettermann Kevin R. Greenleaf is a counsel at Dentons US LLP where he specializes in PTAB post-grant proceedings. He can be reached at [email protected]. Michael W. O’Neill is of counsel at Dentons US LLP in Washington, DC, and a former Administrative Patent Judge from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He specializes in PTAB post-grant proceedings. He can be reached at [email protected]. Dr. Aloys Hüttermann is a German and European patent and trademark attorney and a partner at Michalski Hüttermann & Partner. He specializes in chemistry, bioorganic chemistry, and pharma, and can be reached at [email protected]. Much like Americans, Europeans are revising their patent laws to include a new litigation-style proceed- ing to determine patent validity and infringement. These proceedings will take place in the Unified Patent Court (UPC), which will be installed together with the unitary patent (UP), the latter allowing a single patent for nearly all of Europe. Such a revision will be the greatest change in European patent law since the establishment of the European Patent Office (EPO) in the 1970s. American patent practition- ers need to understand how the new UPC will operate. Europeans can learn from the American experi- ence of establishing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The upcoming UPC is based on an international treaty; however, only European Union (EU) member states can join.
    [Show full text]
  • Where in the World Are We?
    Community Notebook Cache Where in the World are We? Magazines, editors, and s I write this month’s column, You don’t have to several of my colleagues are at wait for an invitation to volunteer at an authors coming to a city near LinuxTag in Berlin [1], just one event – if you see an event that looks in- of the many international events teresting, email the organizers and offer you! By Rikki Kite A we help sponsor and support. Although to help. we can’t attend every event, we are able to be at quite a few each year, and some- Help a Buddy Move times we’re in two places at once. While Have you helped someone move to my colleagues report from LinuxTag, I’ll Linux and open source? I recently wrote be attending SouthEast LinuxFest (SELF) about introducing a friend to Knoppix in Spartanburg, South Carolina [2]. and Ubuntu [5], and maddog followed Events aren’t just an opportunity for up with a blog post of his own [6]. We’d us to hand out free magazines. We also love to hear your additions to our lists get a chance to meet with our authors, and about your moving experiences. such as Dmitri Popov at Lin uxTag and Joe “Zonker” Brockmeier, Amber Graner, Write for Us! maddog, and Jono Bacon at SELF. Events If you haven’t written for us before but are a great way to get feedback from our have an idea for an article, check out our readers and to stay on top of the latest writer's guidelines and send us your pro- news and trends in open source.
    [Show full text]
  • An Open-And-Shut Case the Diplomatic Conference To
    International Journal of Communications Law and Policy Issue 6, Winter 2000/2001 AN OPEN-AND-SHUT CASE THE DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE TO REVISE THE ARTICLES OF THE EURO- PEAN PATENT OFFICE VOTES TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO REGARDING SOFTWARE PATENTS IN EUROPE PENDING ISSUANCE OF A NEW SOFTWARE PATENT DIRECTIVE BY THE EUROPEAN UNION by Erwin J. Basinski, Esq. ** A. Introduction The majority of EPC States decided that the issue of changes to delete the prohibition against computer programs as such should be deferred pending the review being carried out by the European Commission in preparation for the proposed EU Directive on Software Patents. There would then be the possibility of including a subsequent amendment to Article 52 after the EU Software Patent Directive is issued. As to the pending Software Patent Directive, on 19 October 2000, the European Com- mission launched consultations (i.e. requests for comments) via the Internet on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, requesting that interested parties submit comments to the EC prior to December 15, 2000. It was reported that over 60,000 comments were received from independent software developers and small to medium business enterprises (SME) in Europe as a result of a concerted lobbying campaign against software patents by the Open Source Soft- ware community in Europe. Some comments, both pro and con are now available for viewing on the EU web site. It is understood that the EU is soliciting additional economic studies and will begin the draft of the Software Patent Directive shortly. B. Background Software patents have been granted in Europe for many years.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright to Protect Intellectual Property Rights in Cdna, a Better Legal Regime Than Patent Law?
    Copyright to protect intellectual property rights in cDNA, a better legal regime than patent law? Michael Christian van Staveren BA ANR 444484 Thesis supervisor and first reader: Ivan Skorvanek PhD Second reader: Maša Galič PhD Abstract: cDNA (or complementary/engineered DNA) applications are a growing trend in the Biotechnology sphere. cDNA strands are DNA strands that are artificially created. These engineered DNA strands can be used to change the properties of vegetables, livestock, or to find and scope out cancerous mutations in human beings. The possibilities seem endless. Because this industry is a rapidly growing one, the current legal regime might not be suited for cDNA anymore. But is this really the case? The current legal regime is patent law. In literature, it has been proposed to have copyright law be applicable to cDNA. The reasoning behind this is that copyright would be perfect, since it shares many similarities with computer code which can already fall under the copyright regime. It is also much cheaper, and there are no formal requirements. In this thesis, I will evaluate the arguments in favor of making such a change. I will also discuss the counterarguments. My conclusion will be that a hybrid system or a change from one system to another might not be the best solution. I propose a semi-hybrid system. The idea is that copyright law would protect cDNA applications from the moment they are created, up until they receive patent protection. This way cDNA is protected by copyright law but will in the end transition to patent law, which is arguably more robust.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union's Self-Defeating Policy: Patent Harmonization and the Ban on Human Cloning Robin Beck Skarstad*
    COMMENTS THE EUROPEAN UNION'S SELF-DEFEATING POLICY: PATENT HARMONIZATION AND THE BAN ON HUMAN CLONING ROBIN BECK SKARSTAD* 1. INTRODUCTION The European Parliament's1 approval of a directive,2 ten years in the making, represents a huge step towards improving the cli- * I appreciate the time and effort comment editor Eric Green devoted to this piece. I would also like to thank my husband Erik, my sister Jodi, and my parents Robert and Elaine for listening, supporting, and believing long before this piece was ever written. ' The European Parliament, located in Strasbourg, is a governmental body of the European Community ("EC") created by the founding Treaty on Euro- pean Union. See TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, Feb. 7, 1992, OJ. (C 224) 1 (1992), [1992] 1 C.M.L.R. 573 (1992) [hereinafter Maas- tricht Treaty]. It is composed of representatives of the member nations ("MEP"s) who are elected to five-year terms. Although it has recently taken on a greater legislative role, the European Parliament is primarily a consulta- tive and supervisory body. It has the power to refuse assent to agreements and protocols, which is, in effect, a veto power. The European Commission is ac- countable to the Parliament who can censure and require Commissioners' res- ignations. The Parliament also monitors the activities of other European Un- ion ("EU") institutions through committees of inquiry and is empowered to conduct inquiries into complaints or petitions and bring proceedings before the Court of Justice. The Treaty Establishing the European Community defined the Parliament as a consultative body whose views should be taken into con- sideration regarding issues of common foreign and security policy in addition to activities generally concerning Justice and Home Affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Road Towards a European Unitary Patent
    EUC Working Paper No. 21 Working Paper No. 21, March 2014 Unified European Front: The Road towards a European Unitary Patent Gaurav Jit Singh Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore Photo: BNEGroup.org ABSTRACT For over forty years, European countries have held numerous conferences and signed multiple international agreements aimed at either creating a unitary patent which will be valid in all European countries upon issuance or establishing a specialized European court with jurisdiction over patents. This paper first outlines the need for a unitary patent in the European Union and then chronicles the measures taken to support and milestones toward the creation of a European-wide unitary patent system. The paper then discusses the few problems and pitfalls that have prevented European countries from coming to an agreement on such a patent system. Finally, the paper considers the closely related agreements of ‘Unitary Patent Package’, the challenges facing these agreements and examines if it would finally result in an EU Unitary patent system that benefits one and all. The views expressed in this working paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union or the EU Centre in Singapore. The EU Centre in Singapore is a partnership of 13 EUC Working Paper No. 21 UNIFIED EUROPEAN FRONT: THE ROAD TOWARDS A EUROPEAN UNITARY PATENT GAURAV JIT SINGH1 INTRODUCTION Obtaining, enforcing and maintaining patents in the EU are far from efficient or cost effective. An inventor that seeks patent protection in the European Union (EU) territory now has to either file for a national patent in each one of 28 national patent offices, or file for a European patent, granted by the European Patent Office (EPO), within the framework of the European Patent Convention (EPC)2.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Linux from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    History of Linux From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The history of Linux began in 1991 with the commencement of a personal project by Finnish student Linus Torvalds to create a new free operating system kernel. Since then, the resulting Linux kernel has been marked by constant growth throughout its history. Since the initial release of its source code in 1991, it has grown from a small number of C files under a license prohibiting commercial distribution to the 4.2.3 version in 2015 with more than 18 million lines of source code under the GNU General Public License v2.[1](p7)[2][3] Contents 1 Events leading to creation 2 The creation of Linux 3 Naming 4 Linux under the GNU GPL 5 GNU/Linux naming controversy 6 Official mascot 7 New development 7.1 Community 7.2 Open Source Development Lab and Linux Foundation 7.3 Companies 7.4 Desktop environments 8 "Linux is obsolete" 9 Competition from Microsoft 10 SCO 11 Trademark rights 12 Chronology 13 See also 14 References 15 External links Events leading to creation After AT&T had dropped out of the Multics project, the Unix operating system was conceived and implemented by Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie (both of AT&T Bell Laboratories) in 1969 and first released in 1970. Later they rewrote it in a new programming language, C, to make it portable. The availability and portability of Unix caused it to be widely adopted, copied and modified by academic institutions and businesses. In 1977, the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) was developed by the Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG) from UC Berkeley, based on the 6th edition of Unix from AT&T.
    [Show full text]
  • Electronic Copy Available At
    Policy Levers Tailoring Patent Law to Biotechnology. Comparing US and European Approaches Geertrui Van Overwalle Professor of IP Law at the University of Leuven (Belgium) Professor of Patent Law and New Technologies at the University of Tilburg (the Netherlands) Working paper – April 2010 To be published in University of California Irvine Law Review (forthcoming) Table of content 1. Introduction 1.1. “The patent crisis” 1.2. Objective and scope of the present study 1.2.1. European patent law 1.2.2. Policy levers 1.2.3. Biotechnology 2. Biotech-specific policy levers in Europe 2.1. Patent acquisition 2.1.1. Patentable subject matter – inventions and discoveries 2.1.2. Patentable subject matter – morality 2.1.3. Patentable subject matter – medical methods 2.1.4. Novelty – first and second medical use 2.1.5. Novelty – selection invention 2.1.6. Novelty – testing exemption 2.1.7. Inventive step – expectation of success 2.1.8. Inventive step – secondary indicia – commercial success 2.1.9. Industrial applicability 2.1.10. Skilled person 2.1.11. Enabling disclosure 2.2. Patent scope 2.2.1. Scope of product claims – absolute vs. limited scope 2.2.2. Clarity of claims 2.2.3. Breadth of claims 2.3. Patent rights and limitations 2.3.1. Research exemption 2.3.2. Compulsory licensing 2.3.3. Patent term 3. Conclusions 3.1. European policy levers in biotechnology 3.1.1. Policy levers 3.1.2. Macro versus micro policy levers 3.1.3. Statutory versus jurisprudential policy levers 3.1.4. Pre-grant versus post-grant policy levers 3.1.5.
    [Show full text]