software patent vs. copyright

5/20/2018 Software Patent vs. Copyright

1/11

The software patent debateis the argument about the extent to which, as a matter ofpublic policy,

it should be possible topatent softwareand computer-implemented inventions. Policy debate on

software patents has been active for years.[1]The opponents to software patents have gained more

visibility with less resources through the years than their pro-patent opponents.[2]Arguments and

critiques have been focused mostly on the economic consequences of software patents.

One aspect of the debate has focused on the proposedEuropean Uniondirective on the

patentability of computer-implemented inventions,also known as the "CII Directive" or the "Software

Patent Directive," which was ultimately rejected by theEU Parliamentin July 2005.

Contents

[hide]

1 Arguments for patentability

o 1.1 Public disclosure

o 1.2 Protectiono 1.3 Economic benefit

o 1.4 Copyright limitations

2 Arguments against patentability

o 2.1 Software is math

o 2.2 Software encourages patent thickets

o 2.3 Hinders research and development

o 2.4 Cost and loss of R&D funds

o 2.5 Copyright

o 2.6 Software is different

o 2.7 Trivial patents

o 2.8 Open source disadvantage

o 2.9 Software patents' usefulness as an information source is limitedo 2.10 Patent examination is too slow

3 Bilski case

4 See also

5 References

6 External links

o 6.1 Papers

o 6.2 Articles

o 6.3 Neutral sites

o 6.4 Sites in favor of patents on computer-implemented inventions

o 6.5 Sites against software patents

Arguments for patentability[edit]There are several arguments commonly given in defense of software patents or in defense of

thepatentabilityof computer-implemented inventions.

Public disclosure[edit]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Unionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Unionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_directive_on_the_patentability_of_computer-implemented_inventionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_directive_on_the_patentability_of_computer-implemented_inventionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_directive_on_the_patentability_of_computer-implemented_inventionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_directive_on_the_patentability_of_computer-implemented_inventionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliamenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliamenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliamenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Arguments_for_patentabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Arguments_for_patentabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Public_disclosurehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Public_disclosurehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Protectionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Protectionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Economic_benefithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Economic_benefithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Copyright_limitationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Copyright_limitationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Arguments_against_patentabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Arguments_against_patentabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Software_is_mathhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Software_is_mathhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Software_encourages_patent_thicketshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Software_encourages_patent_thicketshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Hinders_research_and_developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Hinders_research_and_developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Cost_and_loss_of_R.26D_fundshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Cost_and_loss_of_R.26D_fundshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Copyrighthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Copyrighthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Software_is_differenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Software_is_differenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Trivial_patentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Trivial_patentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Open_source_disadvantagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Open_source_disadvantagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Software_patents.27_usefulness_as_an_information_source_is_limitedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Software_patents.27_usefulness_as_an_information_source_is_limitedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Patent_examination_is_too_slowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Patent_examination_is_too_slowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Bilski_casehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Bilski_casehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#See_alsohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#See_alsohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Referenceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Referenceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#External_linkshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#External_linkshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Papershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Papershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Articleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Articleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Neutral_siteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Neutral_siteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Sites_in_favor_of_patents_on_computer-implemented_inventionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Sites_in_favor_of_patents_on_computer-implemented_inventionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Sites_against_software_patentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Sites_against_software_patentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=2http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=2http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=2http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Sites_against_software_patentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Sites_in_favor_of_patents_on_computer-implemented_inventionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Neutral_siteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Articleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Papershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#External_linkshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Referenceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#See_alsohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Bilski_casehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Patent_examination_is_too_slowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Software_patents.27_usefulness_as_an_information_source_is_limitedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Open_source_disadvantagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Trivial_patentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Software_is_differenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Copyrighthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Cost_and_loss_of_R.26D_fundshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Hinders_research_and_developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Software_encourages_patent_thicketshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Software_is_mathhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Arguments_against_patentabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Copyright_limitationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Economic_benefithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Protectionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Public_disclosurehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Arguments_for_patentabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliamenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_directive_on_the_patentability_of_computer-implemented_inventionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_directive_on_the_patentability_of_computer-implemented_inventionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Unionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy


2/11

A patent must publicly disclose the invention. This could educate the public by making them

aware of a previously unknown or not obvious software invention.

Protection[edit]

In the U.S., the Congress has stated that "anything under the sun made by man" deservespatent protection[3]to promote innovation.

Economic benefit[edit]

Software patents resulting from the production of patentable ideas can increase the valuation of

small companies.[4]

Software patents increase the return on investment made by the public on federally sponsored

university research, and ensures the flow of knowledge that is required for society to progress .[5]

Copyright limitations[edit]

Main article:Copyright infringement of software

Patents protect functionality. Copyright on the other hand only protects expression. Substantial

modification to an original work, even if it performs exactly the same function, would not be

prevented by copyright. To prove copyright infringement also requires the additional hurdle of

proving copying which is not necessary for patent infringement.

Arguments against patentability[edit]

Opponents of software patents argue that:

Software is math[edit]A program is the transcription of analgorithmin aprogramming language,and being every (Turing-

complete)programming language equivalent to Church'slambda calculusby virtue of theChurch-

Turing thesis,a program is thus the transcription of a mathematical function. Since math is not

patentable, neither is software.[6]

Software encourages patent thickets[edit]

Apatent thicketis a dense web of patents that companies must decipher in order to develop new

technology. There are various types of patent thickets such as when a single innovation is protected

by multiple patent holders or when a product is covered by numerous patents. The consequences ofpatent thickets are increased difficulty of innovation, cross-licensing relations between companies

will be too complex, and it discourages newcomers to enter the software industry.[7]

Hinders research and development[edit]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=3http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=3http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-3http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=4http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=4http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-wipo-4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-wipo-4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-wipo-4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-5http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=5http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=5http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement_of_softwarehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement_of_softwarehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement_of_softwarehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=6http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=6http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=6http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=7http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=7http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing-completehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing-completehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing-completehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing-completehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-Turing_thesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-Turing_thesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-Turing_thesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-Turing_thesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-6http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=8http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=8http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_thickethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_thickethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_thickethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-7http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=9http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=9http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=9http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_thickethttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-Turing_thesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-Turing_thesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing-completehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing-completehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=7http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement_of_softwarehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-wipo-4http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-3http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=3


3/11

Some scientific studies and expert reviews have concluded that patent systems paradoxically

hinder technological progress[8]and allows monopolies and powerful companies to exclude

others from industrial science in a manner that is irreconcilable withanti-trustlaws.[9]

Gary Becker,Nobel prize winning economist argues, "Their exclusion from the patent system

would discourage some software innovations, but the saving from litigation costs over disputedpatent rights would more than compensate the economy for that cost."[10]

Cost and loss of R&D funds[edit]

Should a software developer hire apatent attorneyto perform aclearance searchand provide

aclearance opinion,there is no guarantee that the search could be complete. Different patents

and published patent applications may use different words to describe the same concepts and

thus patents that cover different aspects of the invention may not show up in a search. The cost

of a clearance search may not prove to be cost effective to businesses with smaller budgets or

individual inventors.[11]

For the U.S. the economic benefit is dubious. A study in 2008 found that American public

companies total profits from patents (excluding pharmaceuticals) in 1999 were about $4 b illion,

but that the associated litigation costs were $14 billion.[12]

Software developers and hardware manufacturers may be forced to pay license fees for

standards that are covered by patents (the so-calledessential patents). Some examples

areH.264,MP3andGIF(that uses the patentedLZWcompression algorithm) andJPEGfor

graphics.

Copyright[edit]

It is argued that traditional copyright has provided sufficient protection to facilitate massive

investment in software development.[13]

Copyrightis the right of an author(s) to prevent others from copying their creative work without a

license. Thus the author of a particular piece of software can sue someone that copies that

software without a license. Copyright protection is given automatically and immediately without

the need to register the copyright with a government, although registration does strengthen

protection. Copyrighted material can also be kept secret.

Software is different[edit]

See also:artificial scarcity

Software programs are different than other electromechanical devices because they are

designed solely in terms of their function. The inventor of a typical electromechanical device

must design new physical features to qualify for a patent. On the other hand, a software

developer need only design new functions to create a working embodiment of the program.[14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-trusthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-trusthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-trusthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Beckerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Beckerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-10http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=10http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=10http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_attorneyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_attorneyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_attorneyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearance_search_and_opinionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearance_search_and_opinionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearance_search_and_opinionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearance_search_and_opinionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearance_search_and_opinionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearance_search_and_opinionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-economist-12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-economist-12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-economist-12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_patentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_patentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_patentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Interchange_Format#Unisys_and_LZW_patent_enforcementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Interchange_Format#Unisys_and_LZW_patent_enforcementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Interchange_Format#Unisys_and_LZW_patent_enforcementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZWhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZWhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZWhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEGhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEGhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEGhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=11http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=11http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrighthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrighthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=12http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=12http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-rplotkin-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-rplotkin-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-rplotkin-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-rplotkin-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrighthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-13http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEGhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZWhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Interchange_Format#Unisys_and_LZW_patent_enforcementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_patentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-economist-12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearance_search_and_opinionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearance_search_and_opinionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_attorneyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Beckerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-trusthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-8


4/11

Software is a component of a machine. The computers hardware is generic; it performs

functions that are common to all of the software that is capable of being executed on the

computer. Each software program that is capable of executing on the computer is a component

of the computer.[14]

Computers "design" and build the structure of executable software. Thus, software developersdo not designthe executable software's physical structure because they merely provide the

functional terms.[14]

Trivial patents[edit]

Anecdotal evidence suggests that some software patents cover either trivial inventions or

inventions that would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the

invention was made.[15]

Patent examiners rarely have a comprehensive knowledge of the specific technologies disclosed

in the patent applications they examine. This is in large part due to the enormous number ofmicro-niches in the software field and the relatively limited number of examiners. So, patents are

sometimes allowed on inventions that appear to be trivial extensions of existing technologies.[16]

Open source disadvantage[edit]

Main article:Software patents and free software

The free and open source software community, and many companies that use and contribute to

open source, oppose software patents because they can impede or prohibit the distribution of

free software. They contend that patents threaten to undermine F/OSS, regardless of

innovations produced by F/OSS collaborations.Software patents' usefulness as an information source is limited[edit]

Some patent disclosures in the software field are not readable to some programmers; as a

result, patents are rarely used as a source of technical information by software developers .[17]

Patent examination is too slow[edit]

For 2005, the projected averagependency for patent applicationsin the "Computer Architecture,

Software & Information Security" department of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was 3 and

a half years.[18]

In Europe, the average time taken to grant a patent in any field of technology was almost 4

years in 2005,[19]with the computer related fields probably[vague]being greater than the average.

Bilski case[edit]

Main article:In re Bilski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-rplotkin-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-rplotkin-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-rplotkin-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-rplotkin-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-rplotkin-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-rplotkin-14http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=13http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=13http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-15http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-15http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-15http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-16http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=14http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=14http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_and_free_softwarehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_and_free_softwarehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_and_free_softwarehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=15http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=15http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=15http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-17http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-17http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-17http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=16http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=16http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendency_for_patent_applicationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendency_for_patent_applicationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendency_for_patent_applicationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vaguenesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vaguenesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vaguenesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=17http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=17http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=17http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilskihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilskihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilskihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilskihttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=17http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vaguenesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendency_for_patent_applicationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-17http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=15http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_and_free_softwarehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-15http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_patent_debate&action=edit&section=13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-rplotkin-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-rplotkin-14


5/11

The most prominent court decision believed to influence the future of software patents was by

theSupreme Court of the United States.Bilski,as the case is commonly known, dealt with the

legality of patenting business methods. Bilski and his partner Warsaw applied for and were denied a

patent for their business method of hedging risks in commodities trading.[20]They sought to offer

consumers a flat rate energy billing scheme and then balance the risk with the supplier of energy.The patent examiner rejected the patent on the grounds that it was not implemented in a specific

apparatus and was purely abstract in nature.[21]Bilski brought the rejection to the patent office's

appeals board who affirmed the rejection, although citing the error of the examiner for basing his

analysis on the technological arts. The case was then hearden bancin front of the US Federal

Circuit Court and the rejection was again affirmed, with Bilski's patent request failing the so-

calledmachine-or-transformation test.

The case was heard by the US Supreme Court on November 9, 2009 and issued an opinion on

appeal (asBilski v. Kappos)[22][23][24]that affirmed the judgment of the CAFC, but revised many

aspects of the CAFC's decision. Intheir decision,handed down on June 28, 2010, the Supreme

Court rejected themachine-or-transformation testas the sole test of process patent eligibility based

on an interpretation of the language of 101.[25]

Is it possible to patent computer software?

The European Patent Convention has a provision preventing the patenting of some types of computer software.

However, the majority of computer implemented inventions are not affected by this provision. In recent years, around

6.5% of the patent applications filed at the European Patent Office relate to computer software. Only a small

proportion of these application receive an objection that they represent inherently unpatentable computer software.

Some other jurisdictions, notably the United States, allow the patenting of a still broader range of computer software.

We have considerable experience of advising on the patentability of specific computer implemented inventions and

preparing new patent applications in fields ranging from technically simple dotcom concepts through to complex

inventions in secure data transfer, mobile communications, imaging, simulation, EDA and statistical processing.

If you would like to learn more about the current legal tests for assessing the patentability of computer implemented

inventions in Europe, our article,Hitachi Auction Method,discusses a recent example of how the European Patent

Office determine the patentability of inventions involving computer software. The UK Intellectual Property Office have

changed their approach to determining the patentability of computer software (and business method) inventions from

29 July 2005 (see UK Intellectual Property Officepress release). An article on the new test will follow shortly.

Using Software: A Guide to the Ethical and Legal Use of Software

for Members of the Academic Community

Software enables us to accomplish many different tasks with

computers. Unfortunately, in order to get our work done quickly

and conveniently, some people make and use unauthorized software

copies. The purpose of this brochure is to provide a brief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilskihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilskihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilskihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-20http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-20http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-20http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-BPAI2008-21http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-BPAI2008-21http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-BPAI2008-21http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_banchttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_banchttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_banchttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-or-transformation_testhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-or-transformation_testhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-or-transformation_testhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kapposhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kapposhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-24http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-24http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos#Majority_opinionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos#Majority_opinionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos#Majority_opinionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-or-transformation_testhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-or-transformation_testhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-or-transformation_testhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-25http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-25http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-25http://www.hindlelowther.com/article_hitachi.htmhttp://www.hindlelowther.com/article_hitachi.htmhttp://www.hindlelowther.com/article_hitachi.htmhttp://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/notices/practice/examforpat.htmhttp://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/notices/practice/examforpat.htmhttp://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/notices/practice/examforpat.htmhttp://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/notices/practice/examforpat.htmhttp://www.hindlelowther.com/article_hitachi.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-25http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-or-transformation_testhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos#Majority_opinionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-24http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kapposhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-or-transformation_testhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_banchttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-BPAI2008-21http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#cite_note-20http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilskihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States


6/11

outline of what you legally can and cannot do with software.

Hopefully it will help you better understand the implications and

restrictions of the U.S. Copyright Law.

Here Are Some Relevant Facts:

----------------------------

UNAUTHORIZED copying of software is illegal. Copyright law

protects software authors and publishers, just as patent law

protects inventors.

UNAUTHORIZED copying of software by individuals can harm the

entire academic community. If unauthorized copying proliferates

on a campus, the institution may incur legal liability. Also, the

institution may find it more difficult to negotiate agreements

that would make software more widely and less expensively

available to members of the academic community.

UNAUTHORIZED copying and use of software deprives publishers and

developers of a fair return for their work, increases prices,

reduces the level of future support and enhancements, and caninhibit the development of new software products.

RESPECT for the intellectual work of others has traditionally been

essential to the mission of colleges and universities. As members

of the academic community, we value the free exchange of ideas.

Just as we do not tolerate plagiarism, we do not condone the

unauthorized copying of software, including programs,

applications, data bases and code.

THEREFORE, we offer the following statement of principle about

intellectual property and the legal and ethical use of software.

THE EDUCOM CODE

Software and Intellectual Rights

================================

Respect for intellectual labor and creativity is vital to academic

discourse and enterprise. This principle applies to works of all

authors and publishers in all media. It encompasses respect for

the right to acknowledgment, right to privacy, and right to

determine the form, manner, and terms of publication and

distribution.

Because electronic information is volatile and easily reproduced,

respect for the work and personal expression of others is

especially critical in computer environments. Violations ofauthorial integrity, including plagiarism, invasion of privacy,

unauthorized access, and trade secret and copyright violations,

may be grounds for sanctions against members of the academic

community.

EDUCOM's Educational Uses of Information Technology (EUIT) Program

encourages the broadest possible adoption of this statement of

principle. The EDUCOM Code is intended for adaptation and use by

individuals, and educational institutions at all levels.


7/11

Classification of Software

==========================

In terms of copyright, there are four broad classifications of

software:

Commercial

Shareware

Freeware

Public Domain

The restrictions and limitations regarding each classification are

different.

COMMERCIAL

----------

COMMERCIAL software represents the majority of software purchased

from software publishers, commercial computer stores, etc. When

you buy software, you are actually acquiring a license to use it,

not own it. You acquire the license from the company that owns

the copyright. The conditions and restrictions of the licenseagreement vary from program to program and should be read

carefully. In general, commercial software licenses stipulate

that ( 1 ) the software is covered by copyright, (2) although one

archival copy of the software can be made, the backup copy cannot

be used except when the original package fails or is destroyed,

(3) modifications to the software are not allowed, (4) decompiling

(i.e. reverse engineering) of the program code is not allowed

without the permission of the copyright holder, and (5)

development of new works built upon the package (derivative works)

is not allowed without the permission of the copyright holder.

SHAREWARE

---------

SHAREWARE software is covered by copyright, as well. When you

acquire software under a shareware arrangement, you are actually

acquiring a license to use it, not own it. You acquire the

license, from the individual or company that owns the copyright.

The conditions and restrictions of the license agreement vary from

program to program and should be read carefully. The copyright

holders for SHAREWARE allow purchasers to make and distribute

copies of the software, but demand that if, after testing the

software, you adopt it for use, you must pay for it. In general,

shareware, software licenses stipulate that (1) the software is

covered by copyright, (2) although one archival copy of the

software can be made, the backup copy cannot be used except when

the original package fails or is destroyed, (3) modifications tothe software are not allowed, (4) decompiling (i.e. reverse

engineering) of the program code is not allowed without the

permission of the copyright holder, and (5) development of new

works built upon the package (derivative works) is not allowed

without the permission of the copyright holder. Selling software

as SHAREWARE is a marketing decision, it does not change the legal

requirements with respect to copyright. That means that you can

make a single archival copy, but you are obliged to pay for all

copies adopted for use.


8/11

FREEWARE

--------

FREEWARE also is covered by copyright and subject to the

conditions defined by the holder of the copyright. The conditions

for FREEWARE are in direct opposition to normal copyright

restrictions. In general, FREEWARE software licenses stipulate

that (1) the software is covered by copyright, (2) copies of the

software can be made for both archival and distribution purposes

but that distribution cannot be for profit, (3) modifications to

the software is allowed and encouraged, (4) decompiling (i.e.

reverse engineering) of the program code is allowed without the

explicit permission of the copyright holder, and (6) development

of new works built upon the package (derivative works) is allowed

and encouraged with the condition that derivative works must also

be designated as FREEWARE. That means that you cannot take

FREEWARE, modify or extend it, and then sell it as COMMERCIAL or

SHAREWARE software.

PUBLIC DOMAIN

-------------

PUBLIC DOMAIN software comes into being when the original

copyright holder explicitly relinquishes all rights to the

software. Since under current copyright law, all intellectual

works (including software) are protected as soon as they are

committed to a medium, for something to be PUBLIC DOMAIN it must

be clearly marked as such. Before March 1, 1989, it was assumed

that intellectual works were NOT covered by copyright unless the

copyright symbol and declaration appeared on the work. With the

U.S. adherence to the Berne Convention this presumption has been

reversed. Now all works assume copyright protection unless the

PUBLIC DOMAIN notification is stated. This means that for PUBLIC

DOMAIN software (1) copyright rights have been relinquished, (2)

software copies can be made for both archival and distribution

purposes with no restrictions as to distribution, (3)

modifications to the software are allowed, (4) decompiling (i.e.

reverse engineering) of the program code is allowed, and (5)

development of new works built upon the package (derivative works)

is allowed without conditions on the distribution or use of the

derivative work.

Questions You May Have About Using Software

===========================================

What do I need to know about software and the U.S. Copyright Act?

It's really very simple. The Copyright Law recognizes that all

intellectual works (programs, data, pictures, articles, books,

etc.) are automatically covered by copyright unless it is

explicitly noted to the contrary. That means that the owner of a

copyright holds the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute

his or her work. For software this means it is illegal to copy or

distribute software, or its documentation, without the permission

of the copyright holder.


9/11

If you have a legal copy of software you are allowed to make a

single archival copy of the software for backup purposes.

However, the copy can only be used if the original software is

destroyed or fails to work. When the original is given away, the

backup copy must also be given with the original or destroyed.

If software is not copy-protected, do I have the right to copy it?

Lack of copy-protection does NOT constitute permission to copy

software without authorization of the software copyright owner.

"Non-copy-protected" software enables you to make a backup copy.

In offering non-copy-protected software to you, the developer or

publisher has demonstrated significant trust in your integrity.

May I copy software that is available through facilities on my

campus, so that I can use it more conveniently in my own office or

room?

Software acquired by colleges and universities is usually coveredby licenses. The licenses should clearly state how and where the

software may be legally used by members of the relevant campus

communities (faculty, staff, and students). Such licenses cover

software whether installed on stand-alone or networked systems,

whether in private offices and rooms, or in public clusters and

laboratories. Some institutional licenses permit copying for

certain purposes. The license may limit copying, as well.

Consult your campus authorities to be sure if you are unsure about

the permissible use of a particular software product.

May I loan software?

The 1990 modification to the Copyright Law makes it illegal to

"loan, lease or rent software" for purposes of direct or indirect

commercial advantage without the specific permission of the

copyright holder. Non-profit educational institutions are

exempted from the 1990 modification, so institutional software may

be loaned.

Some licenses may even restrict the use of a copy to a specific

machine, even if you own more than one system. In general,

licenses usually do NOT allow the software to be installed or

resident on more than a single machine, or to run the software

simultaneously on two or more machines.

Isn't it legally "fair use" to copy software if the purpose in

sharing it is purely educational?

Historically, the Copyright Law was modified to permit certain

educational uses of copyrighted materials without the usual

copyright restrictions. However, "fair use" of computer software

is still a cloudy issue. The "fair use" amendments to the

copyright law are intended to allow educational use of legally

protected products, but it is limited (for paper-based products)


10/11

to small portions of full works. For most software it is clearly

illegal to make and distribute unauthorized, fully-functional

copies to class members for their individual use. Making copies

of a small section of code from a program in order to illustrate a

programming technique might not be a violation. The best

alternative is to clear any such use with the copyright owner or

consult the appropriate authorities at your institution.

Alternatives To Explore

=======================

Software can be expensive. You may think that you cannot afford

to purchase certain programs that you need. Site-licensed and

bulk purchased software are legal alternatives that make multiple

copies of software more affordable. Many educational institutions

negotiate special prices for software used and purchased by

faculty, staff and students. Consult your campus computing office

for information. As with other software, site-licensed or bulk

purchased software is still covered by copyright, although the

price per copy may be significantly lower than the normal

commercial price. A usual condition of site-licensing or bulk-

purchasing is that copying and distribution of the software islimited to a central office which must maintain inventories of who

received it. When you leave the academic community by graduation,

retirement, or resignation you may no longer be covered by the

institutional agreement and may be required to return or destroy

your copies of the software licensed to the institution.

Many colleges sell software through a campus store at "educational

discounts." If you purchase software for yourself through such an

outlet, the software is yours and need not be destroyed or

surrendered when you leave the institution. It is, however, still

covered by normal copyright protection and covered by the specific

conditions of the licensing agreement.

A Final Note

============

Restrictions on the use of software are far from uniform. You

should check carefully each piece of software and the accompanying

documentation yourself. In general, you do not have the right to:

Receive and use unauthorized copies of software, or

Make unauthorized copies of software for others.

If you have questions not answered by this brochure about the

proper use and distribution of a software product, seek help from

your computing office, the software developer or publisher, or

other appropriate authorities at your institution.

This brochure has been produced as a service to the academic

community by the Educational Uses of Information Technology

Program (EUIT) of EDUCOM and the Information Technology

Association of America (ITAA). EDUCOM is a non-profit consortium

of colleges and universities committed to the use and management

of information technology in higher education. ITAA is an

industry association providing issues management and advocacy,


11/11

public affairs, business-to-business networking, education and

other member services to companies which create and market

products and services associated with computers, communications

and data.

Although this brochure is copyrighted, you are authorized and

encouraged to make and distribute copies of it, in whole or in

part, providing the source is acknowledged. Additional copies of

this brochure may be purchased by contacting one of the

organizations listed below.

EDUCOM

1112 16th Street, NW

Suite 600

Washington, DC 20036

(202)872-4200

ITAA

1616 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 1300

Arlington, VA 22204

(703)284-5355

January, 1992

EDUCOM and ITAA

software patent vs. copyright

Documents