intellectual property protection for software william fisher june 23, 2004
Post on 21-Dec-2015
217 views
TRANSCRIPT
Intellectual Property Protection for Software
William Fisher
June 23, 2004
Activities that Software Developers Might Control
• Consumer reproduction of object code
• Commercial reproduction of object code
• Incorporation of parts of source code in new programs
• Preparation and distribution of improved versions/derivative works
Forms of IP for Software
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Forms of IP for Software
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Trade Secrecy
Forms of IP for Software
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Trade Secrecy
Contracts
Pro-CD Bowers
Forms of IP for Software
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Trade Secrecy
Contracts
Copyright
CONTU
Pro-CD Bowers
Apple EC Directive 91/250
TRIPS 10(1)
Forms of IP for Software
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Trade Secrecy
Contracts
Copyright
Patent
CONTU
DiehrBenson
Flook Alappat
State Street
Pro-CD Bowers
Apple EC Directive 91/250
TRIPS 10(1)
Forms of IP for Software
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Trade Secrecy
Subject Matter• Restatement Definition: a process or device for
continuous use in the operation of a business. Includes:– information pertaining to contents of or manufacture of a
product– process of treating or preserving materials– information relating to business operations– computer programs; customer lists
• UTSA expands protected matter to include:– single or ephemeral events– negative information
Subject Matter• Restatement Definition: a process or device for
continuous use in the operation of a business. Includes:– information pertaining to contents of or manufacture of a
product– process of treating or preserving materials– information relating to business operations– computer programs; customer lists
• UTSA expands protected matter to include:– single or ephemeral events– negative information
Requirements for Protection
(1) Information must have been “secret” initiallysome courts add explicit novelty requirement
Requirements for Protection
(1) Information must have been “secret” initiallysome courts add explicit novelty requirement
(2) Plaintiff must have made reasonable efforts to keep it secret
Requirements for Protection
(1) Information must have been “secret” initiallysome courts add explicit novelty requirement
(2) Plaintiff must have made reasonable efforts to keep it secret
(3) The information must be commercially valuable
Requirements for Liability• Breach of Confidence
– confidential relationship– reliance on commercial custom and tacit
understandings
• or: Secret was discovered through “improper means”– e.g., overflights; fraudulent misrepresentations;
phone taps– Not reverse engineering
Requirements for Liability• Breach of Confidence
– confidential relationship– reliance on commercial custom and tacit
understandings
• or: Secret was discovered through “improper means”– e.g., overflights; fraudulent misrepresentations;
phone taps– Not reverse engineering
Remedies• Injunctions
– debate over length and breadth– not available after plaintiff obtains a patent
• Damages– actual damages
• plaintiff’s lost profits, or
• defendant’s gains
– consequential damages– punitive damages– attorneys’ fees
Trade Secret Protection for Software
• Companies sell copies of object code, keep source code secret
• Courts rule that public distribution of object code does not forfeit TS protection, so long as source code is hard to reverse engineer– Data General v. DCI (Del. 1971)– Telex v. IBM (CA10 1975)– Q-Co Industries (SDNY 1985)
Trade Secret Protection for Software
• Appropriate to an era in which software is custom-made by vertically integrated hardware suppliers for large commercial customers
• Weaknesses– Gradual improvement of decompilers– No protection against “piracy” of object code– Limited protection against “downstream”
consumers– Consumers’ demand for access to source code
Forms of IP for Software
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Trade Secrecy
Forms of IP for Software
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Trade Secrecy
Contracts
Pro-CD Bowers
Typical Shrinkwrap Licenses
• Restraints on resale or rental;• Limits on the manufacturer’s warranties;• Prohibitions on modifying or tampering with the
product (including disassembling or reverse engineering);
• Prohibitions on uses of the product that would have been permitted by the fair-use doctrine;
• Requirements that the consumer not contest the validity of the producer’s copyright or patent;
Contractual Protection
• Pro-CD v. Zeidenberg (CA7 1996):– copyright law does not preempt state contract law,
used to enforce shrinkwrap license restriction on commercial uses
• Bowers v. Baystate Technologies (CAFC 2003):– Copyright law does not preempt state contract law
used to enforce shrinkwrap license restriction on reverse engineering
• UCITA
Forms of IP for Software
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Trade Secrecy
Contracts
Pro-CD Bowers
Forms of IP for Software
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Trade Secrecy
Contracts
Copyright
CONTU
Pro-CD Bowers
Apple EC Directive 91/250
TRIPS 10(1)
Copyright Protection• 1964: Register of Copyrights announces
willingness to register published software programs – upon proof of sufficient “original authorship”– But object-code versions might not constitute
“copies”
• 1964-1977: 1,205 programs registered– 80% by IBM and Burroughs
• 1978: CONTU recommends full copyright protection for software
• 1980: Congress adopts recommendation
Copyright Protection
• 1991: EC Directive 91/250: All member states must modify domestic copyright law to recognize copyrights in software
• 1994: TRIPS Art. 10(1):– “Computer programs, whether in source or object
code, shall be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention”
Basic Copyright ProtectionEntitlements -- §106
(1) Reproduction(2) Derivative Works(3) First Distribution(4) Public Performance(5) Public Display
Exceptions:Fair Use -- §107Merger“essential” or “archival” copying -- §117
Apple v. Franklin (CA3 1983)
Apple v. Franklin (CA3 1983)
Apple
Apple v. Franklin (CA3 1983)
Apple
Apple O.S.
Apple v. Franklin (CA3 1983)
Apple
AppleBorland
Free access Apple O.S.
Apple v. Franklin (CA3 1983)
Apple
Apple O.S.
AppleBorland
Free access
Franklin
Apple v. Franklin (CA3 1983)
Apple
Apple O.S.
AppleBorland
Free access
Franklin
Apple v. Franklin (CA3 1983)
Apple
Apple O.S.
AppleBorland
Free access
Franklin
Copy of Apple O.S.Verbatimcopying
Apple v. Franklin (CA3 1983)
Apple
Apple O.S.
AppleBorland
Free access
Franklin
Copy of Apple O.S.Verbatimcopying
Forms of IP for Software
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Trade Secrecy
Contracts
Copyright
CONTU
Pro-CD Bowers
Apple EC Directive 91/250
TRIPS 10(1)
Dimensions of Diminishing Copyright Protection
• Copying Nonliteral Features of Programs
• Reverse Engineering for the Purpose of Interoperability
• Menu Hierarchies
• Ineffective Enforcement
Dimensions of Diminishing Copyright Protection
• Copying Nonliteral Features of ProgramsCopying Nonliteral Features of Programs
• Reverse Engineering for the Purpose of Interoperability
• Menu Hierarchies
• Ineffective Enforcement
Copying Nonliteral Features of Programs
• Whelan (CA3 1986)
• Plains Cotton (CA5 1987)
• *Altai (CA2 1992)
• Kepner-Tregoe (CA5 1994)
Altai Test(1) Abstraction(2) Filtration
Unprotected Material includes:(a) Elements dictated by efficiency(b) Elements dictated by external factors
(i) mechanical specifications of the computer(ii) compatibility requirements of other programs (iii) computer manufacturers' design standards(iv) demands of the industry being served(v) widely accepted programming practices
(c) Elements taken from public domain(3) Comparison
Nichols “Pattern” Test
Nichols “Pattern” TestId
eaE
xpre
ssio
n
Nichols “Pattern” TestId
eaE
xpre
ssio
n
Elements dictated by efficiency
Nichols “Pattern” TestId
eaE
xpre
ssio
n
Elements dictated by efficiency
Nichols “Pattern” TestId
eaE
xpre
ssio
n
Elements dictated by external factors
Nichols “Pattern” TestId
eaE
xpre
ssio
n
Elements dictated by external factors
Nichols “Pattern” TestId
eaE
xpre
ssio
n
Elements taken from public domain
Nichols “Pattern” TestId
eaE
xpre
ssio
n
Elements taken from public domain
Comparison
Protected Parts of Plaintiff’s program
Comparison
Protected Parts of Plaintiff’s program
Elements of defendant’s program
Comparison
Protected Parts of Plaintiff’s program
Elements of defendant’s program
Dimensions of Diminishing Copyright Protection
• Copying Nonliteral Features of ProgramsCopying Nonliteral Features of Programs
• Reverse Engineering for the Purpose of Interoperability
• Menu Hierarchies
• Ineffective Enforcement
Dimensions of Diminishing Copyright Protection
• Copying Nonliteral Features of Programs
• Reverse Engineering for the Purpose of Reverse Engineering for the Purpose of InteroperabilityInteroperability
• Menu Hierarchies
• Ineffective Enforcement
Organization of Computer Programs
Organization of Computer Programs
Hardware
Organization of Computer Programs
Hardware
Operating System
Organization of Computer Programs
Hardware
Operating System
Application Program
Application Program
Hardware
Operating System
Application Program
Application Program
Interoperability
Hardware
Operating System
Application Program
Application Program
Interoperability
Interoperability Strategy #1(e.g., Microsoft, Apple)
Dell
Microsoft
MicrosoftBorland
Free access
Interoperability Strategy #2(e.g., Sega, Nintendo)
Nintendo
Nintendo
NintendoLicensee
License fees
Interoperability Strategy #3(e.g., MAI Systems Corp.)
MAI
MAI
MAIMAI
No licenses
Sega (CA9 1992)
Sega Genesis III
TMSS
Sega GamesLicensed Games
License fees
Sega (CA9 1992)
Sega Genesis III
TMSS
Sega GamesLicensed Games
License fees
AccoladeGames
Lock-out
Sega (CA9 1992)
Sega Genesis III
TMSS
Sega GamesLicensed Games
License fees
AccoladeGames
Lock-out
Microcode (copied by Accolade)
Sega (CA9 1992)
Sega Genesis III
TMSS
Sega GamesLicensed Games
License fees
AccoladeGames
Lock-out
TMSSinitializationcode
Sega (CA9 1992)
Sega Genesis III
TMSS
Sega GamesLicensed Games
License fees
AccoladeGames
Fair Use Doctrine
• Purpose and Character of the Use– commercial use– transformative uses– parody– propriety of defendant’s conduct
• Nature of the Copyrighted Work– fictional works/factual works– unpublished/published
• Amount of the portion used• Impact on Potential Market
– rival definitions of “market”– only substitution effects are cognizable
Fair Use Doctrine -- as applied in Sega
• Purpose and Character of the Use– commercial use: purpose of A’s copying was “study” (noncom)– transformative uses: concede no transformative use– parody: n.a.– propriety of defendant’s conduct: stress decency of A’s behavior
• Nature of the Copyrighted Work– fictional works/factual works: computer programs deserve less
protection that fictional works– unpublished/published: sale of program = publication
• Amount of the portion used: concede A copied entire program• Impact on Potential Market
– rival definitions of “market”: implicit adoption of narrow version– only substitution effects are cognizable
Reverse Engineering for Interoperability
• Courts finding this to be fair use:– CAFC (Atari 1992; Bowers 2003 [dictum])– CA5 (DSC Communications 1996)– CA 9 (Sega 1992; Sony 2000)– CA11 (Bateman 1996)
• EC Directive 91/250, Art. 6, takes same position
Dimensions of Diminishing Copyright Protection
• Copying Nonliteral Features of Programs
• Reverse Engineering for the Purpose of Reverse Engineering for the Purpose of InteroperabilityInteroperability
• Menu Hierarchies
• Ineffective Enforcement
Dimensions of Diminishing Copyright Protection
• Copying Nonliteral Features of Programs
• Reverse Engineering for the Purpose of Interoperability
• Menu HierarchiesMenu Hierarchies
• Ineffective Enforcement
Menu Hierarchies: Litigation History
• Lotus v. Paperback (DMass 1990)
• Lotus (CA1 1995)
Dimensions of Diminishing Copyright Protection
• Copying Nonliteral Features of Programs
• Reverse Engineering for the Purpose of Interoperability
• Menu HierarchiesMenu Hierarchies
• Ineffective Enforcement
Dimensions of Diminishing Copyright Protection
• Copying Nonliteral Features of Programs
• Reverse Engineering for the Purpose of Interoperability
• Menu Hierarchies
• Ineffective EnforcementIneffective Enforcement
Source: Business Software Alliance
Possible Explanations
• Local Self-Interest
• Ideology
• Pressure
• Improved Marketing
Possible Explanations
• Local Self-Interest– United States in 19th century– Developing countries today
• Ideology
• Pressure
• Improved Marketing
Possible Explanations
• Local Self-Interest
• Ideology
• Pressure
• Improved Marketing
Possible Explanations
• Local Self-Interest
• Ideology– Global:
• From “monopoly” to “Intellectual Property”
• From nationalism to comity
• Habit yields sense of entitlement (VCRs, MP3)
• Pressure
• Improved Marketing
Possible Explanations
• Local Self-Interest
• Ideology– Local:
• Labor theory
• Romantic conception of authorship/personality theory
• Communal conceptions of creativity
• Socialism; anti-individualism
• Pressure
• Improved Marketing
Possible Explanations
• Local Self-Interest
• Ideology
• Pressure
• Improved Marketing
Possible Explanations
• Local Self-Interest
• Ideology
• Pressure– TRIPS– Bilateral Agreements– Trade sanctions
• Improved Marketing
Possible Explanations
• Local Self-Interest
• Ideology
• Pressure
• Improved Marketing
Possible Explanations
• Local Self-Interest
• Ideology
• Pressure
• Improved Marketing
Piracy Rates Within the United States
Sou
rce:
Bus
ines
s S
oftw
are
All
ianc
e
Sou
rce:
Bus
ines
s S
oftw
are
All
ianc
e
MT
WY
ID
WA
OR
NV
UT
CA
AZ
ND
SD
NE
CO
NM
TX
OK
KS
AR
LA
MO
IA
MN
WI
IL IN
KY
TN
MS AL GA
FL
SC
NC
VAWV
OH
MI
NY
PA
MD
DE
NJ
CTRI
MA
ME
VT
NH
AK
HI
Blue = Gore Red = Bush
MT
WY
ID
WA
OR
NV
UT
CA
AZ
ND
SD
NE
CO
NM
TX
OK
KS
AR
LA
MO
IA
MN
WI
IL IN
KY
TN
MS AL GA
FL
SC
NC
VAWV
OH
MI
NY
PA
MD
DE
NJ
CTRI
MA
ME
VT
NH
AK
HI
Blue = below average piracy rate Red = above average piracy rate
MT
WY
ID
WA
OR
NV
UT
CA
AZ
ND
SD
NE
CO
NM
TX
OK
KS
AR
LA
MO
IA
MN
WI
IL IN
KY
TN
MS AL GA
FL
SC
NC
VAWV
OH
MI
NY
PA
MD
DE
NJ
CTRI
MA
ME
VT
NH
AK
HI
Blue = below average piracy rate Red = above average piracy rate
35 states fit the pattern; 15 do not
Forms of IP for Software
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Trade Secrecy
Contracts
Copyright
CONTU
Pro-CD Bowers
Apple EC Directive 91/250
TRIPS 10(1)
Forms of IP for Software
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Trade Secrecy
Contracts
Copyright
Patent
CONTU
DiehrBenson
Flook Alappat
State Street
Pro-CD Bowers
Apple EC Directive 91/250
TRIPS 10(1)
Processes
Products
Processes
Processes
Processes
Machines
Processes
Machines
Compo
sitio
ns
of M
atte
r
Processes
Machines
Compo
sitio
ns
of M
atte
r
Man
ufac
ture
Processes
Machines
Compo
sitio
ns
of M
atte
r
Man
ufac
ture
Product-by-process
PbP
Processes
Machines
Compo
sitio
ns
of M
atte
r
Man
ufac
ture
Processes
Machines
Compo
sitio
ns
of M
atte
r
Man
ufac
ture
Laws of Nature
Processes
Machines
Compo
sitio
ns
of M
atte
r
Man
ufac
tureAlgorithms
Laws of Nature
Processes
Machines
Compo
sitio
ns
of M
atte
r
Man
ufac
tureAlgorithms
Laws of Nature
NaturallyOccurringSubstances
Design
Patents
Processes
Machines
Compo
sitio
ns
of M
atte
r
Man
ufac
tureAlgorithms
Laws of Nature
NaturallyOccurringSubstances
Design
Patents
Processes
Machines
Compo
sitio
ns
of M
atte
r
Man
ufac
ture
Purified
Algorithms
Laws of Nature
NaturallyOccurringSubstances
Design
Patents
Processes
Machines
Compo
sitio
ns
of M
atte
r
Man
ufac
ture
Purified
Genes
Algorithms
Laws of Nature
NaturallyOccurringSubstances
Design
Patents
Processes
Machines
Compo
sitio
ns
of M
atte
r
Man
ufac
ture
PPA
Purified
Genes
Algorithms
Laws of Nature
NaturallyOccurringSubstances
Design
Patents
Processes
Machines
Compo
sitio
ns
of M
atte
r
Man
ufac
ture
PVPA
PPA
Purified
Genes
Algorithms
Laws of Nature
NaturallyOccurringSubstances
Design
Patents
Processes
Machines
Compo
sitio
ns
of M
atte
r
Man
ufac
ture
PVPA
PPA
Animals
Purified
Genes
Algorithms
Laws of Nature
NaturallyOccurringSubstances
Design
Patents
Processes
Machines
Compo
sitio
ns
of M
atte
r
Man
ufac
ture
PlantsPVPA
PPA
Animals
Purified
Genes
Algorithms
Laws of Nature
NaturallyOccurringSubstances
Design
Patents
Processes
Machines
Compo
sitio
ns
of M
atte
r
Man
ufac
ture
PlantsPVPA
PPA
Animals
Purified
Genes
Algorithms
Laws of Nature
NaturallyOccurringSubstances
Design
Patents
SurgicalProcedures
Processes
Machines
Compo
sitio
ns
of M
atte
r
Man
ufac
ture
PlantsPVPA
PPA
Animals
Purified
Genes
Algorithms
Laws of Nature
NaturallyOccurringSubstances
Software
Design
Patents
SurgicalProcedures
Processes
Machines
Compo
sitio
ns
of M
atte
r
Man
ufac
ture
PlantsPVPA
PPA
Animals
Purified
Genes
Algorithms
Laws of Nature
NaturallyOccurringSubstances
Software
Design
Patents
Business Methods
SurgicalProcedures
Processes
Machines
Compo
sitio
ns
of M
atte
r
Man
ufac
ture
PlantsPVPA
PPA
Animals
Purified
Genes
Algorithms
Laws of Nature
NaturallyOccurringSubstances
Patent Protection• Gottschalk v. Benson (US 1972)
• Parker v. Flook (US 1978)
• Diamond v. Diehr (US 1981)
• Federal Circuit Relaxation of the Test, 1982-present
Federal Circuit Relaxation of the Test• Freeman-Walter-Abele test (1977-1982)
– Is the algorithm applied as part of an otherwise statutory process or apparatus claim?
• gradual weakening, 1982-1994– Iwahashi (1989)– Arrhythmia (1992)
• In re Alappat (CAFC 1994)– an algorithm embedded in a general purpose
computer becomes a patentable machine• PTO Guidelines (1996): will accept applications
for software on disks• State Street Bank (CAFC 1998)• AT&T (CAFC 1999)
State Street Bank
Investment Portfolio
partn
ership
Mut
ual F
und
4Mutual Fund 5
Mutual Fund 1
Mut
ual F
und
2
Mutual Fund 3
State Street Bank
Investment Portfolio
partn
ership
Mut
ual F
und
4Mutual Fund 5
Mutual Fund 1
Mut
ual F
und
2
Mutual Fund 3IndividualInvestor
State Street Bank
Investment Portfolio
partn
ership
Mut
ual F
und
4Mutual Fund 5
Mutual Fund 1
Mut
ual F
und
2
Mutual Fund 3IndividualInvestor
State Street Bank
Investment Portfolio
partn
ership
Mut
ual F
und
4Mutual Fund 5
Mutual Fund 1
Mut
ual F
und
2
Mutual Fund 3IndividualInvestor
11%
14%
20%
25%
30%
Data Processing System
State Street Holdings• Transformation of data by a machine into a
final share price constitutes a practical application of an algorithm and is therefore patentable subject matter
• Repudiate the “business-methods” exception to patentability
Software Patent Grants
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Software Patent Grants
• Over 100,000 software patents issued to date in U.S.
Patent Doctrines by Technology Sector
Patent Doctrines by Technology Sector
= average
Patent Doctrines by Technology Sector
Utility
= average
Patent Doctrines by Technology Sector
Utility Novelty
= average
Patent Doctrines by Technology Sector
Utility Novelty Obviousness
= average
Patent Doctrines by Technology Sector
Utility Novelty Obviousness Disclosure
= average
Patent Doctrines by Technology Sector
Utility Novelty Obviousness Disclosure
= average
= software
Patent Doctrines by Technology Sector
Utility Novelty Obviousness Disclosure
= average
= software
= biotechnology
Patent Doctrines by Technology Sector
Utility Novelty Obviousness Disclosure
= average
= software
= biotechnology
Sophisticated PHOSITA;Mature technology
Patent Doctrines by Technology Sector
Utility Novelty Obviousness Disclosure
= average
= software
= biotechnology
Sophisticated PHOSITA;Mature technology
Unsophisticated PHOSITA;Unpredictable technology
What sorts of IP Protection (if any?) are appropriate for softeware?
Patent Rights Most Likely to Foster Innovation in field where:
1) High R&D Costs2) High degree of uncertainty concerning success
of particular lines of research3) Content of technological advances can be
ascertained easily by competitors through “reverse engineering”
4) Technological advances can be mimicked by competitors rapidly and inexpensively
5) Innovators highly responsive to monetary incentives
6) Innovation not cumulative