Emerging Areas of IPR

Unit 8, Contemporary Intellectual Property Issues : 

Dr. Tabrez Ahmad Professor of Law www.technolexindia.com tabrezahmad7@gmail.com http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Unit 8, Contemporary Intellectual Property Issues 1 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

IP Protection of Computer software: 

Wednesday, November 09, 2011 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com 2 IP Protection of Computer software

Agenda: 

Agenda Copyrightability Patentability 3 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Copyrightability: 

Copyrightability Computer software is copyrightable This was not clear in the 1957 Copyright Act (and authors argued to Congress against it) It was repaired by the Computer Software Copyright Amendments of 1994, which added a definition of “computer program” to the Copyright Act: “A ‘computer program’ is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.” Then a new section made it apparent that computer programs were copyrightable 4 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Computer Software Copyright: 

Computer Software Copyright Special copyright provisions for computer programs Making of Additional Copy by Owner of Copy.— it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make … another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) such a new copy … is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and … is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy … is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. 17 U.S.C. § 117(a) 5 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Should Computer Software be Copyrightable? : 

Should Computer Software be Copyrightable? Does the long term of copyright “promote the progress of science and useful arts” or hinder it? Are computer programs “works of authorship”? Isn’t is essential for programmers to use constructs created by others? Aren’t computer programs purely functional? They control machines, so aren’t they a “method of operation” and hence uncopyrightable? There is a constant tension between protecting expression and leaving methods of operation free of copyright 6 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Protected Forms of Software: 

Protected Forms of Software Source code Object code Is a work of authorship? A derivative work? Code in RAM Translations into other computer languages Bytecode? 7 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Functionality: 

Functionality The “function” of a program cannot be copyrighted. (It might be patentable.) If the expression is “dictated” by the function, then there is no creative expression and no copyright 8 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Idea/Expression Merger: 

Idea/Expression Merger If an unprotectible idea can be expressed in only one or a very limited number of ways, then the “idea” and the “expression” of the idea “merge” and no copyright is possible To hold otherwise would give a long monopoly on an idea or process, which should be protected, if at all, by a much shorter patent (20 years v. life + 60 years) 9 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Herbert Rosenthal v. Kalpakian 446 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1971) : 

Herbert Rosenthal v. Kalpakian 446 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1971) “The difficulty… is that … the ‘idea’ and its ‘expression’ appear to be indistinguishable. There is no greater similarity between the pins of plaintiff and defendants than is inevitable from the use of jewel-encrusted bee forms in both. When the ‘idea’ and its ‘expression’ are thus inseparable, copying the ‘expression’ will not be barred, since protecting the ‘expression’ in such circumstances would confer a monopoly of the "idea" upon the copyright owner.” Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Nichols Abstractions Test: 

Nichols Abstractions Test “When a plagiarist does not take out a block in situ, but an abstract of the whole, decision is more troublesome. Upon any work, and especially upon a play, a great number of patterns of increasing generality will fit equally well, as more and more of the incident is left out…there is a point in this series of abstractions where they are no longer protected.” [since they are ideas] Nicholls v. Universal Pictures (2d Cir. 1930) 11 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison: 

Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison A test for infringement of computer programs Takes into account different structures and computer languages From Computer Associates v. Altai (2d Cir. 1992) Abstraction: reducing the program to a set of functional processes (e.g. modules) Filtration: eliminating unprotectible elements Comparison: seeing if the remaining portions are substantially similar 12 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Computer Associates Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992): 

Computer Associates Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992) Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com 13 CA wrote a computer program that would allow their scheduling software to run on different kinds of computers. Altai sold a similar kind of scheduling software, so they asked their programmers (who were kept segregated from CA's program), to write a program with the same functionality, which they did. CA sued Altai for copyright infringement . The Trial Court found for Altai. CA appealed. Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Slide 14: 

Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com 14 The Appellate Court affirmed. The Appellate Court looked to Baker v. Selden (101 U.S. 99 (1879)), and noted that an idea cannot be copyrighted, only the expression of that idea can be copyrighted. The Court applied the Abstraction - Filtration - Comparison test. In Abstraction the court breaks up the program into different levels, from very general to very specific. E.g. Main purpose, program structure, modules, algorithms, data structures, source code. In Filtration , the court decides what components are absolutely essential to fulfilling the abstract function of the program at the various levels. Also filter out everything that is dictated by efficiency, external factors, or in the public domain. In Comparison , the court looks at the components of the program which are not absolutely essential to fulfilling the abstract function of the program to see if they are similar. Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Slide 15: 

Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com 15 The Court performed the Abstraction - Filtration - Comparison test and found that the copyrightable elements from CA's program were not substantially similar to those elements in Altai's program. Basically, this case said that what the courts need to do is to sift out all elements of the allegedly infringed program which was ideas of dictated by efficiency or external factors, or taken from the public domain in order to find "a core of protectable expression." At that point the courts should focus on whether there are substantial similarities between any elements within this core in the two programs. Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Abstraction: 

Abstraction “A computer program may be thought of as a set of individual instructions organized into a hierarchy of modules. At a higher level of abstraction, the instructions in the lowest- level modules may be replaced conceptually by the functions of those modules. At progressively higher levels of abstraction, the functions of higher-level modules conceptually replace the implementations of those modules in terms of lower-level modules and instructions, until finally, one is left with nothing but the ultimate function of the program.... A program has structure at every level of abstraction at which it is viewed.” Computer Associates v. Altai 16 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Abstraction: 

Abstraction Dissect the allegedly copied program's structure and isolate each level of abstraction contained within it. The process begins with the code and ends with an articulation of the program's ultimate function. Along the way, it is necessary essentially to retrace and map each of the designer's steps--in the opposite order in which they were taken during the program's creation. 17 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Filtration: 

Filtration Eliminate unprotectible elements, such as those Dictated by efficiency Most succinct formula, best data structure for the task Dictated by external factors Programming standards Interface specifications, e.g. and API Problem constraints: must use a particular protocol Drawn from the public domain Computer Associates v. Altai 18 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Comparison: 

Comparison “There may remain a core of protectable expression. In terms of a work's copyright value, this is the golden nugget. … At this point, the court's substantial similarity inquiry focuses on whether the defendant copied any aspect of this protected expression, as well as an assessment of the copied portion's relative importance with respect to the plaintiff's overall program. (‘To determine whether similarities result from unprotectable expression, analytic dissection of similarities may be performed. If ... all similarities in expression arise from use of common ideas, then no substantial similarity can be found.’)” Computer Associates v. Altai 19 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Lotus v. Borland 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995) : 

Lotus v. Borland 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995) Lotus Development created the successful spreadsheet program Lotus 1-2-3 (a predecessor of Excel) 1-2-3 had 50 command menus with a total of 469 commands, such as “Copy,” Print,” “Quit” Borland created its own spreadsheet, Quattro To provide customers with a smooth transition path from 1-2-3 to Quattro, Borland needed to support importation of 1-2-3 files into Quattro. 1-2-3 had a macro facility in which users could record sequences of menu selections To support 1-2-3 macros, Quattro had to include all 469 1-2-3 commands 20 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Lotus v. Borland : 

Lotus v. Borland Borland copied the entire Lotus command hierarchy Borland did not have access to, and did not copy, ANY Lotus source code Is the menu hierarchy and command set copyrightable? It certainly contains creative expression The District Court found that there were many alternatives to the command names (e.g. “Exit” instead of “Quit”), so there was no idea/expression merger The District Court found that Borland infringed Boland appealed 21 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Lotus v. Borland : 

Lotus v. Borland Court of Appeals did not focus on idea/expression merger, but on functionality Is the menu hierarchy a “method of operation”? “We think that ‘method of operation,’ refers to the means by which a person operates something … a text describing how to operate something would not extend copyright protection to the method of operation itself; other people would be free to employ that method and to describe it in their own words.” 22 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Lotus v. Borland : 

Lotus v. Borland “We hold that the Lotus menu command hierarchy is an uncopyrightable ‘method of operation.’ The Lotus menu command hierarchy provides the means by which users control and operate Lotus 1-2-3. If users wish to copy material, for example, they use the ‘Copy’ command. If users wish to print material, they use the ‘Print’ command. Users must use the command terms to tell the computer what to do.” “The Lotus menu command hierarchy does not merely explain and present Lotus 1- 2-3's functional capabilities to the user; it also serves as the method by which the program is operated and controlled.” REVERSED 23 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004) : 

Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004) Lexmark makes computer printers that use toner cartridges Static Control makes microchips used by companies who remanufacture toner cartridges Lexmark didn’t like customers to use alternative cartridges. It used technological means to prevent it. It had a “toner loading program” which measured the amount of toner remaining in the cartridge. The program is resident in the cartridge The program was 55 bytes long, much shorter than this slide 24 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Lexmark v. SCC : 

Lexmark v. SCC A much longer “Printer Engine Program” drives the printer and resides on the printer Lexmark registered the code to both programs Lexmark sells two types of toner cartridges: “Prebate”: sold at a discount. User agrees to used the cartridge only once and return the used one to Lexmark “Non-Prebate”: no discount, no contractual restriction To enforce the Prebate agreement, the printer performs an authentication of the cartridge based on a hash value. If the hash value is incorrect, the printer will not operate 25 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Lexmark v. SCC : 

Lexmark v. SCC SCC sells a “SMARTEK” chip which contains an identical copy of the Lexmark Toner Loading Program The SCC SMARTEK chip executes the Lexmark authentication sequence and fools the printer into thinking that the cartridge is from Lexmark SCC claims it is necessary for compatibility Lexmark claims copyright infringement circumvention of access controls on Toner Loading Program circumvention of access controls on Printer Engine Program District Court found a valid copyright in the Toner Loading Program (could be programmed in multiple ways) and enjoined SCC from copying 26 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Lexmark v. SCC : 

Lexmark v. SCC On appeal. the Sixth Circuit found that the 55-byte program was uncopyrightable CMU Prof. Bruce Maggs was Lexmark’s expert. He said the program could have been written 50 different ways (1) different constants and equations could be used (2) a lookup table could be used in lieu of equations (3) some measure other than torque could be used to approximate toner level (e.g., the number of pages printed); or (4) the same equations could be used in a different sequence. SCC’s expert testified that the code was determined by external factors (e.g. the printer only downloaded 55 bytes, so the program had to fit in that space) 27 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Lexmark v. SCC : 

Lexmark v. SCC The appeals court sided with SCC “Dr. Maggs’ first and third suggestions—that different equations and values or a different means of measuring toner level altogether could have been used—do not appear to represent alternative means of expressing the ideas or methods of operations embodied in the Toner Loading Program; they appear to be different ideas or methods of operation altogether. Selection from among competing ideas or methods of operation generally does not result in copyright-protectable expression.” 28 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Lexmark v. SCC : 

Lexmark v. SCC “When a work itself constitutes merely an idea, process or method of operation, or when any discernible expression is inseparable from the idea itself, or when external factors dictate the form of expression, copyright protection does not extend to the work.” The Toner Loading program was simply lockout code dictated by the authentication constraint 29 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Major Ideas: 

Major Ideas Computer software is copyrightable in many forms, including object code Software elements that are “dictated by external factors” are not protectible by copyright “Methods of operation” are not protectible by copyright Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison is a test for copyright infringement particularly appropriate for computer programs 30 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Slide 31: 

When dealing with legal regimes of property we have to pose certain questions The nature of a property claim (e.g Ownership/ right of exclusion) The rules associated with particular property claims (What right accrue with a claim) The peculiar subject matter of property (Tangible v. Intangible); Sub divisions within these categories; Patent v. Copyright The nature of rules associated with particular property claims (Are the rules the same for Tangible property as it is with intangible?) The question of Public v. Private interest involved with particular property claims 31 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Slide 32: 

Does the phrase intellectual property make sense and when did it start making sense as a coherent body that covers a wide range of subject matter from inventions to poems to plant varieties to computer programs The phrase IP is a little misleading as it connotes a number of things for a number of people. Historically there has been a distinct realm that emerges between the idea of different kinds of claims like patents, copyright, trademarks , etc. 32 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Slide 33: 

Two ways of entering into the debate : From a doctrinal first principles approach to the subject matter of intellectual property e.g. copyright, or from a historical and political economy analysis of the conditions under which certain property regimes emerge The implication of particular property claims over issues of productivity, creativity and innovation. The question of risk posed by certain property forms Industrial Risk Social Risk 33 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Slide 34: 

The Various Questions raised by the Legal Regime of Patent The current debate over the Third Patent Amendment Act which significantly moves away from India’s Patent Policy from 1970 Analyzing The Implications of this move from the perspective of Industrial Risk Social Risk They may not be distinct 34 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Slide 35: 

Patentability of Computer Software A Patent is: A statutory privilege granted by the government; To an inventor or persons deriving their rights under the inventor; For a fixed period of time; To exclude other persons from manufacturing, selling or using a patented product, or; From utilizing a patented method or process. 35 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Slide 36: 

Philosophical premise 1. To encourage research and development. 2. To reward the inventor for the expenses that s/he goes through to make the product commercially viable. To induce an inventor to disclose his/her inventions rather than keep them secret. To induce the investment of capital in new lines of production How do these premises fit in with the larger question of the structural form of a Property Regime 36 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Key Issues in Patent law: 

Key Issues in Patent law The question of the Promotion of Innovation Exclusive Rights v. Absolute Monopoly Product v. Process 37 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Software Patents: 

Software Patents Background: Initial Problems posed by software The Idea/ Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law Baker v. Selden and the ‘Merger Doctrine’ The question of functionality Difficulties of Applying traditional tests such as idea/ expression dichotomy to software 38 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Slide 39: 

By the early 80’s software was brought under the rubric of copyright law in the world and in 1994 in India. There still existed a number of areas which posed problems Literal/ Non Literal Elements Functional / Non Functional Elements User Interface Reverse Engineering and Fair Use Rights But Software was specifically kept outside of the purview of Patent Protection Non Patentable Subject Matter included software and algorithms because they were seen to be completely functional and hence could not qualify as inventions 39 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Slide 40: 

Initial case law also followed the same principles. Gottschalk v. Benson 409 U.S. 63 (1972) The patent application involved a method of programming a general-purpose digital computer to convert signals from binary-coded decimal BCD form into pure binary form Relying on the principles in Baker v. Selden the court rejected the Patent Application stating that the claims in question would have the "practical effect" of wholly preempting any use of the mathematical steps in the conversion formula The first significant shift away is in Diamond v. Diehr 450 U.S 175 (1981) : Diehr claimed an invention related to a "method of operating a rubber-molding press" by using the well-known Arrhenius equation to control the cure time of synthetic rubber. 40 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Slide 41: 

The Court held that that an algorithm programmed for execution by a general purpose digital computer was like a law of nature, which cannot be the subject of a patent. However a "claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become non statutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula, computer program or digital computer." While excluding laws of nature and ideas of themselves, the Court stated that “ An application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection ” 41 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Slide 42: 

This decision opened the flood gates and gradually the position that emerged from various cases were expanded and the position became clear that Software may not ‘per se’ be non patentable The Indian Patents Act 1970 Algorithms and Software was excluded 1999 Amendment ‘software per se’ 2005 Amendment in Ordinance Form stated “ a computer programme per se other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware; a mathematical method or a business method or algorithms ” 42 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Critical issues Raised by Software Patents: 

Critical issues Raised by Software Patents What does the Movement from Copyright to Patent entail? Different Subject Matter Different Criteria Different Rights Different Claimants Procedure Duration 43 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Nature of Software: 

Nature of Software Complexity of innovation process in software Traditional Innovations in Inventions: Singular Logic Major software may comprise up to 10 million lines of code - potentially thousands of inventions, any of which might be patented For example, Apple was sued because its HyperCard program allegedly violates patent number 4,736,308, which covers a specific technique that, in simplified terms, entails scrolling through a database displaying selected parts of each line of text. Separately, the scrolling and display functions are ubiquitous fixtures of computer programming, but combining them without a license from the holder of patent 4,736,308 is now apparently illegal 44 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Slide 45: 

Software is different from other engineering and mechanical inventions for which patent protection was devised. The latter are often characterized by large "building block" inventions that can revolutionize a given mechanical process. Software, especially a complex program, seldom includes substantial leaps in technology, but rather consists of adept combinations of many ideas. Whether a software program is a good one does not generally depend as much on the newness of a specific technique, but instead depends on the unique combination of known algorithms and methods. Were Patents intended for the protection of such methods of innovation 45 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Slide 46: 

Rapidity of Software Development Research in software is galloping ahead of developments. In most industries, researching new ideas often costs more money than bringing them to the market. The software industry is, on the other hand, loaded with ideas The idea behind most software patents can be coded in just 20 lines of code, but any program incorporating that idea - along with many others - will be a thousand times larger. It is the writing of a program that takes all the time, not coming up with ideas . What this means is that on an average of every two years, a product will have to be replaced in the market. The idea underlying it will remain the same although the particular means and variants of its applications may have changed radically. Coming out with a full-featured product, every two years is costly especially in relation to the inexpensive idea that backs it. There ’ s more novelty in the development and application of the same idea to new technology than with coming up with the original raw idea. 46 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Slide 47: 

If the objective of granting patent rights is to foster the growth and evolution of the industry, then does the Grant of a patent at this stage result in unreasonably prolonging the life of a product? Software doesn't wear out : In other industries, research continues up to a point where further research costs too much to be feasible. At this stage, the industry's output merely consists of replacing parts that have worn out. However, in the software sector, a computer program that is fully debugged will perform its function forever without requiring maintenance or modification. What this means is that unlike socks that wear out, and breakfast cereal that are eaten, a particular software product can be sold to a particular customer once at the most. If it is to be sold to that customer again, it must be enhanced with new features and functionality. ” This inevitably means that even if the industry were to approach maturity, any software company that does not produce new and innovative products will simply run out of customers ! Thus, the industry will remain innovative whether or not software patents exist. 47 Wednesday, November 09, 2011 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com

Slide 48: 

Software has different economics : Most other major industries have medium to high research and development costs and very high production costs. Software is unique in this aspect because The research costs very little because “ ideas are as abundant as air ” -The development of an idea into a marketable product costs far more than the research. -The production costs are minimal, often just a little more than the price of the medium, which is typically a floppy or a CDROM. Patents affect the ‘ development ’ stage of the process of ‘ manufacture ’ of software. Thus the threat exists that the price of software could be singularly determined by the number of patented innovations that it incorporates. 48 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Risks of Software Patents: 

Risks of Software Patents The Effect of Absolute Monopolies on the process of Software Development Almost 30,000 software Patents that are granted a year to the first applier This means that if you do take software patents seriously, you would first have to do a search to ensure that you are not violating someone’s patent Difficulties involve Transaction Costs Lack of Certainty since you cannot know about Patent Pending Applications Thus you may be sued for violating a Patent that you did not even know existed For instance 49 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Slide 50: 

In 1984, the compress program was written, a program for data compression. At the time, there was no patent on the LZW compression algorithm which it used. Then in 1985, the US issued a patent on this algorithm and over the next few years, those who distributed the compress program started getting threats. There was no way that the author of compress could have realized that he was likely to get sued Procedural Problems of doing a search Legalese Inaccuracy of the Patent Applications, as well as the Patent granted 50 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Slide 51: 

The move towards a Defensive Patent Regime Patents as insurance E.g Cross Licensing The Tyranny of Licensing Costs: Assuming standard royalty of 5 %, what happes if you need to Scope of the Software Sometimes the idea that's patented will be so broad and basic that it basically rules out an entire field. For instance, the idea of Public Key Encryption which was patented in the US. The patent expired in 1997. Until then, it largely blocked the use of Public Key Encryption in the US. A number of programs that people started to develop got crushed. They were never really available because the patent holders threatened them. Then, one program got away. The program PGP, which initially was released as free software. Apparently, the patent holders by the time they got around to attacking, realized they might get too much bad publicity. So they imposed restrictions making it for non-commercial use only, which meant it couldn't catch on too much. So they greatly limited the use of Public Key Encryption for a decade or more. There was no way around that patent. There was nothing else you could do like that 51 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Copyright in Internet: 

Wednesday, November 09, 2011 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com 52 Copyright in Internet

P2P File Sharing: 

P2P File Sharing Wednesday, November 09, 2011 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com 53 Napster Gnutella Kazaa Grokster

Linking: 

Linking Wednesday, November 09, 2011 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com 54 Linking Deep Linking Framing Microsoft V. Total News

Encryption & Network Security: 

Encryption & Network Security Wednesday, November 09, 2011 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com 55 Firewalls PKI Model

Do you have any question?: 

Do you have any question? Wednesday, November 09, 2011 56 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com

Slide 57: 

Wednesday, November 09, 2011 Dr. Tabrez ahmad, KLS KIIT, http://technolexindia.blogspot.com 57 Thanks