The concept of “intellectual property” in India over the last few years has taken on some epic proportions for a number of reasons. One of the primary reasons, attributable to the growing awareness among the urban Indian population, is of the significance and, more importantly, the commercial benefits in protecting its intellectual property rights both within and outside India. And under traditional principles of intellectual property protection, patent law is to encourage scientific research, new technology, and industrial progress. The fundamental principle of patent law is that the patent is granted only for an invention i.e. new and useful the said invention must have novelty and utility. The grant of patent thus becomes of industrial property and also called intellectual property. And computer software is a relatively new recipient of patent protection.
The term “Patent” has its origin from the term “Letter Patent”. This expression ‘Letter Patent’ meant open letter and were instruments under the Great Seal of King of England addressed by the Crown to all the subjects at large in which the Crown conferred certain rights and privileges on one or more individuals in the kingdom. It was in the latter part of the 19th century new inventions in the field of art, process, method or manner of manufacture, machinery and other substances produced by manufacturers were on increased and the inventors became very much interested that the inventions done by them should not be infringed by anyone else by copying them or by adopting the methods used by them. To save the interests of inventors, the then British rulers enacted the Indian Patents and Design Act, 1911.
With respect to the patentability of software-related inventions, it is currently one of the most heated areas of debate. The software has become patentable in recent years in most jurisdictions (although with restrictions in certain countries, notably those signatories of the European Patent Convention or EPC) and the number of software patents has risen rapidly.
MEANING OF SOFTWARE PATENTING
The term “software” does not have a precise definition and even the software industries fail to give a specific definition. But it is basically used to describe all of the different types of computer programs. Computer programs are basically divided into “application programs” and “operating system programs”. Application programs are designed to do specific tasks to be executed through the computer and the operating system programs are used to manage the internal functions of the computer to facilitate the use of application program.
Though the term ‘Software patent’ does not have a universally accepted definition. One definition suggested by the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure is that a software patent is a “patent on any performance of a computer realized by means of a computer program”.
According to Richard Stallman, the co-developer of the GNU-Linux operating system and proponent of Free Software says, “Software patents are patents which cover software ideas, ideas which you would use in developing software.
That is Software patents refer to patents that could be granted on products or processes (including methods) which include or may include software as a significant or at least necessary part of their implementation, i.e. the form in which they are put in practice (or used) to produce the effect they intend to provide.
An early example of a software patent:
On 21st Sep 1962, a British patent application entitled “A Computer Arranged for the Automatic Solution of Linear Programming Problems” was filed. The invention was concerned with efficient memory management for the simplex algorithm and may be implemented by purely software means. The patent was granted on August 17, 1966, and seems to be one of the first software patents.
CONCEPTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COPYRIGHT AND PATENT
The software has traditionally been protected under copyright law since code fits quite easily into the description of a literary work. Thus, Software is protected as works of literature under the Berne Convention, and any software written is automatically covered by copyright. This allows the creator to prevent another entity from copying the program and there is generally no need to register code in order for it to be copyrighted. While Software Patenting has recently emerged (if only in the US, Japan, and Europe) where, Patents give their owners the right to prevent others from using a claimed invention, even if it was independently developed and there was no copying involved.
Further, it should be noted that patents cover the underlying methodologies embodied in a given piece of software. On the other copyright prevents the direct copying of software, but do not prevent other authors from writing their own embodiments of the underlying methodologies.
The issues involved in conferring patent rights to the software are, however, a lot more complex than taking out copyrights on them. Specifically, there are two challenges that one encounters when dealing with software patents. The first is about the instrument of the patent itself and whether the manner of protection it confers is suited to the software industry. The second is the nature of software, and whether it should be subject to patenting.
However, issues involved in conferring patent rights to the software are a lot more complex than taking out copyrights on them. Specifically, there are two challenges that one encounters when dealing with software patents. The first is about the instrument of the patent itself and whether the manner of protection it confers is suited to the software industry. The second is the nature of software and whether it should be subject to patenting.
a) Different Subject Matters
Copyright protection extends to all original literary works (among them, computer programs), dramatic, musical and artistic works, including films. Under copyright, protection is given only to the particular expression of an idea that was adopted and not the idea itself. (For instance, a program to add numbers written in two different computer languages would count as two different expressions of one idea) Effectively, independent rendering of a copyrighted work by a third party would not infringe the copyright.
Generally, patents are conferred on any ‘new’ and ‘useful’ art, process, method or manner of manufacture, machines, appliances or other articles or substances produced by manufacture. Worldwide, the attitude towards patentability of software has been skeptical.
b) Who may claim the right to a patent /copyright?
Generally, the author of a literary, artistic, musical or dramatic work automatically becomes the owner of its copyright.
The patent, on the other hand, is granted to the first to apply for it, regardless of who the first to invent it was. Patents cost a lot of money. They cost even more paying the lawyers to write the application than they cost to actually apply. It takes typically some years for the application to get considered, even though patent offices do an extremely sloppy job of considering.
c) Rights conferred
Copyright law gives the owner the exclusive right to reproduce the material, issue copies, perform, adapt and translate the work. However, these rights are tempered by the rights of fair use which are available to the public. Under “fair use”, certain uses of copyright material would not be infringing, such as use for academic purposes, news reporting, etc. Further, independent recreation of a copyrighted work would not constitute infringement. Thus if the same piece of code were independently developed by two different companies, neither would have a claim against the other.
A patent confers on the owner an absolute monopoly which is the right to prevent others from making, using, offering for sale without his/her consent. In general, patent protection is a far stronger method of protection than copyright because the protection extends to the level of the idea embodied by software and injuncts ancillary uses of an invention as well. It would weaken copyright in software that is the base of all European software development because independent creations protected by copyright would be attackable by patents. Many patent applications cover very small and specific algorithms or techniques that are used in a wide variety of programs. Frequently the “inventions” mentioned in a patent application have been independently formulated and are already in use by other programmers when the application is filed.
d) Duration of protection
The TRIPS agreement mandates a period of at least 20 years for a product patent and 15 years in the case of a process patent.
For Copyright, the agreement prescribes a minimum period of the lifetime of the author plus seventy years.
JURISDICTIONS OF SOFTWARE PATENTING
Substantive law regarding the patentability of software and computer-implemented inventions, and case law interpreting the legal provisions, are different under different jurisdictions.
Software patents under multilateral treaties:
- Software patents under the TRIPs Agreement
- Software patents under the European Patent Convention
- Computer programs and the Patent Cooperation Treaty
Software patenting under the TRIPs Agreement
The WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), particularly Article 27, are subject to debate on the international legal framework for the patentability of software, and on whether software and computer-implemented inventions should be considered as a field of technology.
According to Art. 27 of TRIPS Agreement, patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. (…) patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and whether products are imported or locally produced.”
However, there have been no dispute settlement procedures regarding software patents. Its relevance for patentability in the computer-implemented business methods and software information technology remains uncertain since the TRIPs agreement is subject to interpretation.
Software patents under the European Patent Convention
Within European Union member states, the EPO and other national patent offices have issued many patents for inventions involving software since the European Patent Convention (EPC) came into force in the late 1970s. Article 52 EPC excludes “programs for computers” from patentability (Art. 52(2)) to the extent that a patent application relates to a computer program “as such” (Art. 52(3)). This has been interpreted to mean that any invention which makes a non-obvious “technical contribution” or solves a “technical problem” in a non-obvious way is patentable even if a computer program is used in the invention.
Computer-implemented inventions which only solve a business problem using the computer, rather than a technical problem, are considered unpatentable as lacking an inventive step. Nevertheless, the fact that an invention is useful in business does not mean it is not patentable if it also solves a technical problem.
Computer programs and the Patent Cooperation Treaty
The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) is an international patent law treaty, which provides a unified procedure for filing patent applications to protect inventions. A patent application filed under the PCT is called an international application or PCT application. Under the PCT, the international search and the preliminary examination are conducted by International Searching Authorities (ISA) and International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA).
However, before we start hailing the advent of a new era and equating the patenting of software in India it would be well worth our while to take a pause and examine the realities of software patenting. We could do this by looking at examples of countries in which software patenting has already become the order of the day, such as in the US and Japan.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has traditionally not considered software to be patentable because by statute patents can only be granted to “processes, machines, articles of manufacture, and compositions of matter”. i.e. In particular, patents cannot be granted to “scientific truths” or “mathematical expressions” of them. The USPTO maintained the position that software was in effect a mathematical algorithm, and therefore not patentable, into the 1980s. This position of the USPTO was challenged with a landmark 1981 Supreme Court case, Diamond v. Diehr. The case involved a device that used computer software to ensure the correct timing when heating, or curing, rubber. Although the software was an integral part of the device, it also had other functions related to real-world manipulation. The court then ruled that as a device to mold rubber, it was a patentable object. The court essentially ruled that while algorithms themselves could not be patented, devices that utilized them could.
But in 1982 the U.S. Congress created a new court i.e the Federal Circuit to hear patent cases. This court allowed patentability of software, to be treated uniformly throughout the US. Due to a few landmark cases in this court, by the early 1990s, the patentability of software was well established.
Moreover, Several successful litigations show that software patents are now enforceable in the US. That is the reason, Patenting software has become widespread in the US. As of 2004, approximately 145,000 patents had issued in the 22 classes of patents covering computer-implemented inventions.
Software is directly patentable in Japan. In various litigations in Japan, software patents have been successfully enforced. In 2005, for example, Matsushita won a court order barring Justsystem from infringing Matsuhita’s Japanese patent 2,803,236 covering word processing software.
With respect to computer software, in Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002, the scope of non-patentable subject matter in the Act was amended to include the following: “a mathematical method or a business method or a computer program per se or algorithms”.
However, the recent amendment changes (Ordinance, 2004), which amends the Patents Act, 1970, has been promulgated after receiving assent from the President of India and has come into effect from 1st Jan. 2005. Apart from the change in pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals, one of the seminal amendments this Ordinance seeks to bring is to permit the patenting of embedded software.
Hence, the amendment means that while a mathematical or a business method or an algorithm cannot be patented, a computer program which has a technical application in any industry or which can be incorporated in hardware can be patented. Since any commercial software has some industry application and all applications can be construed as technical applications, obviously, it opens all software patents.
In any case, any company seeking to file a patent application for software under the Ordinance should ensure that its invention firstly, follows the three basic tests:
- Inventive Steps
Therefore, it is important that the software sought to be protected is not merely a new version or an improvement over the existing code.
Further, in accordance with the specific requirements of the Ordinance with regard to patentability of software, the software should necessarily have a technical application to the industry or be intrinsic to or “embedded” in hardware. This is to prevent against any future litigation or claims of infringements being raised, which is a distinct probability even after a patent has been granted.
India for its part seems to have adopted the more conservative approach of the European patenting norms for software. But the Ordinance definitely has its use and relevance in today’s India, particularly for our growing domestic semiconductor industry. This, along with judicial tempering might definitely ensure judicious use of patent protection while allowing the industry to grow through innovations and inventions, thereby, mitigating the risks of trivial patents chocking the life out of real innovations and inventions. This is the reason a patent should always be treated as a “double-edged sword”, to be wielded with caution and sensitivity.
Now whether, in reality, this will be implemented on a rigid basis or will become broad in scope through the application (as in the U.S.), and, more importantly, whether the Ordinance would, in fact, result in increased innovation and inventions in the software industry, remains to be seen.
Article Source: Ezinearticles.com