Copyright Protection for ASIC Gate Configurations: PLDs, Custom and Semicustom Chips

Conventional wisdom holds that computer software and computer hardware require two different species of intellectual property protection. Software is thought best protected by copyright law, while hardware is thought best protected by patent law, trade secret law or the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984. Recent technological and legal developments blur software-hardware distinctions, as courts have extended copyright protection to object code, firmware and microcode, and patent protection to software. This note argues that the standard industry conceptions of hardware and software are inadequate to answer the legal question of what is copyrightable as a computer program. Furthermore, it considers whether application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), which are, typically, semi-custom hardware solutions to engineering design problems traditionally solved in software, should qualify as computer programs for purposes of copyright protection

Copyright Protection for ASIC Gate Configurations: PLDs, Custom and Semicustom Chips

Conventional wisdom holds that computer software and computer hardware require two different species of intellectual property protection. Software is thought best protected by copyright law, while hardware is thought best protected by patent law, trade secret law or the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984. Recent technological and legal developments blur software-hardware distinctions, as courts have extended copyright protection to object code, firmware and microcode, and patent protection to software. This note argues that the standard industry conceptions of hardware and software are inadequate to answer the legal question of what is copyrightable as a computer program. Furthermore, it considers whether application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), which are, typically, semi-custom hardware solutions to engineering design problems traditionally solved in software, should qualify as computer programs for purposes of copyright protection

Copyright Protection of Software

Computer technology has developed within the last decades with many advancements which require intellectual property protections. This thesis addresses the need for the legal protection of software by the vast body of copyright laws. This thesis examines the history, nature, textual and practical compositions of copyright laws and their adaptability to computer technology. The thesis further analyses the scope of copyright protection with emphasis on the Computer Software Copyright Act of 1980 (CSCA), the regime of international conventions for the protection of software as well as other statutory protections for the owners and users of the software. The thesis concludes with recommendations for improving software protection as a national and international matter while retaining the current framework

Copyright Protection for Computer Software: an International View

The best method for protection of computer software has been a topic of debate and considerable controversy during the past few decades both in the United States, and in technologically advanced countries throughout the world. Current legal theories of protection include patent, trade secret and copyright law. Although each theory has its particular merits, this Note will focus on the growing trend toward copyright protection for computer software

The Policy Implications of Granting Patent Protection to Computer Software: An Economic Analysis

This Note analyzes the propriety of granting patent law protection to computer software by viewing this problem from economic, legal, public and technological policy perspectives. Part II explains the relationship between computer hardware and software, discusses the role of algorithms in software development,and traces the development of the computer software industry.Part III analyzes the economic policies underlying the patent system. Part IV identifies the patent law principles that are relevant to the software patentability issue and discusses their underlying policy foundations. Part V examines the Supreme Court\u27s application of these principles in the leading software patent cases and concludes that the Court\u27s failure to understand computer technology has caused it to withhold patent protection from computer software. Part V reveals that the Supreme Court has mischaracterized software algorithms by treating them as unpatentable mathematical laws. Part VI of this Note analyzes the benefits and costs of granting patent protection to computer software and demonstrates the compelling societal need for this protection. \u27Part VI also proposes an addition to the Patent Office of a small staff of computer science experts to remedy the administrative problem of processing software patent applications

Comparative Study of Patent Protection for Computer Software in a Sino-EU-US Context

A patent basically gives its holder monopoly for the patented subject matter, which is why strong patent rights often are criticized for conflicting with the open and free standards that benefit the public. Only by being the holder of one crucial patent within a standard technology, the holder is in a position to slow down or even fully stop the standardization process. The fast progress of computer technology makes defining the scope of the protection the law should afford computer programs quite difficult. The purpose of this thesis is to examine how the application process, and intellectual property right protection for software patents differ in different legal systems. Software patents provide protection for the software, but globally there is no one legal definition of a software patent. This means that the first thing to establish, is how a software patent is defined in different legal systems, after which this thesis will move on to consider the actual main research question of the thesis. The main question that will be considered in this thesis is how the protection a software patent provides differs between selected legal systems? The selected legal systems, i.e. the territorial scope of this paper will include the USA, the EU, and China. These three legal systems were chosen because of their substantial size and importance both as general markets, but even more importantly as highly competitive markets for software. Some attention will also be paid to copyright, as the form of intellectual property protection that preceded patents as the primary protection form for software. The thesis will examine the protection each legal system offers individually, but the overarching issue regarding this thesis will be a comparison between the legal systems. The legal systems will be compared to each other, in order to identify their common and unique characteristics, ending up in a discussion for an ideal legal system, consisting of the best parts from the legal systems, in the view of the patent holder and society as a whole. Business methods and software are among the most debated subjects within patent law, be-cause these areas are considered far too broad in scope, the reason behind many “patent troll” lawsuits, doubtful to conquer the prior art requirement because of loose disclosure requirements, and in general not worthy of patent protection. During the years, solutions to the sup-posed problems of business method and software patents have been short lived. Solution proposals and approaches have been accepted and rejected at a fast rate globally

Defining Computer Program Parts Under Learned Hand\u27s Abstractions Test in Software Copyright Infringement Cases

This Note proposes a set of computer program part definitions that develop Learned Hand\u27s abstractions test to make it more useful in software infringement cases. The Note takes no position on the proper scope of protection for software under copyright law, but argues that no consensus is possible on which program parts deserve copyright protection until courts recognize that computer programs are composed of components whose definition lies beyond judicial control. Program parts defined in conclusory legal terms will never provide a stable basis for reasoned debate over the conclusions presumed in the definitions

Symbols, Systems, and Software as Intellectual Property: Time for CONTU, Part II?

The functional nature of computer software underlies two propositions that were, until recently, fairly well settled in intellectual property law: first, that software, like other utilitarian articles, may qualify for patent protection; and second, that the scope of copyright protection for software is comparatively limited. Both propositions have become considerably shakier as a result of recent court decisions. Following Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the lower courts have invalidated many software patents as unprotectable subject matter. Meanwhile, Oracle America v. Google Inc., 750 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014) extended far more expansive copyright protection to functional software components than precedent suggested. The result of these developments has been a new period of uncertainty regarding the existence and scope of intellectual property protection for computer software. The root of the problem lies in Congress’s relative inattention to the question of what legal regime (if any) should govern the creation of computer software. Congress extended copyright protection to software largely without grappling with the consequences of applying a body of law designed to promote creative expression to functional, useful code. Meanwhile, Congress has spoken only obliquely to the question whether software warrants patent protection. The turmoil in the courts reflects a general lack of legislative guidance. This Article asks whether the time is ripe for remedial legislation and suggests some questions that ought to guide congressional inquiry

Symbols, Systems, and Software as Intellectual Property: Time for Contu, Part II?

The functional nature of computer software underlies two propositions that were, until recently, fairly well settled in intellectual property law: first, that software, like other utilitarian articles, may qualify for patent protection; and second, that the scope of copyright protection for software is comparatively limited. Both propositions have become considerably shakier as a result of recent court decisions. Following Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the lower courts have invalidated many software patents as unprotectable subject matter. Meanwhile, Oracle America v. Google Inc., 750 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014) extended far more expansive copyright protection to functional software components than precedent suggested. The result of these developments has been a new period of uncertainty regarding the existence and scope of intellectual property protection for computer software. The root of the problem lies in Congress’s relative inattention to the question of what legal regime (if any) should govern the creation of computer software. Congress extended copyright protection to software largely without grappling with the consequences of applying a body of law designed to promote creative expression to functional, useful code. Meanwhile, Congress has spoken only obliquely to the question whether software warrants patent protection. The turmoil in the courts reflects a general lack of legislative guidance. This Article asks whether the time is ripe for remedial legislation and suggests some questions that ought to guide congressional inquiry

The EC Directive on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs

The evolution of computer technology has launched questions regarding the proper scope of protection for computer software. The European Community (EC) recently adopted a Council Directive on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs (the Directive), which protects computer software under the copyright paradigm. The path to final adoption of the Directive, however, was marked by debates between diametrically opposed lobbying groups regarding the propriety of a reverse engineering exception to the exclusive right of reproduction. This Note discusses the lobbying efforts that led to a compromise and analyzes the Directive through a comparison to United States law. Next, the Note analyzes a look and feel infringement suit under the Directive in an attempt to discover current trends in the international copyright protection of computer software. The Note concludes that the Directive is a laudable step toward legitimizing the process of reverse engineering and promoting international standards of protection. Nonetheless, the author concludes that the decompilation exception found in the Directive is overly limited by the requirement that decompilation be indispensible to interoperability. The author argues that a broader reverse engineering right to discover underlying ideas would have better promoted the EC computer industry\u27s desire to break into the international software market