AC LORRAIN - INT course of Intellectual property law

1,382
-1

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,382
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

AC LORRAIN - INT course of Intellectual property law

  1. 1. INT , 6 November 2006 Anne-Catherine LORRAIN Legal Adviser PhD Candidate in Intellectual property & ICT law CERDI (Centre d’Etudes et de Recherche en Droit de l’Immatériel), Universities Paris I Sorbonne / Paris Sud aclorrain@gmail.com Master in management International business law # Law for Communication and Information Technology Legal protection of computer programs and of databases
  2. 2. <ul><li>Legal protection of computer programs </li></ul><ul><li>Legal protection of databases </li></ul>Today’s framework
  3. 3. Introduction : IP law and new technologies <ul><li>Constant adaptation of IP law to technology </li></ul><ul><li>Alleged ‘legal void’ </li></ul><ul><li>Legal action possible (competition law…) before creation of specific IP protection </li></ul>
  4. 4. Legal protection of computer programs (Software)
  5. 5. True or false? <ul><li>Software is protected by copyright </li></ul><ul><li>Software can be patented in Europe </li></ul><ul><li>I can make a copy of a software program for private use </li></ul>
  6. 6. Software protection <ul><li>Legal definition of a computer program </li></ul><ul><li>No definition in EC Software Directive </li></ul><ul><li>France : ‘ logiciel’ = computer program + related documentation, preparatory material </li></ul>
  7. 7. Software protection (2) <ul><li>European Directive on computer programs protection </li></ul><ul><li>Directive of 14 May 1991 (‘Sotware Directive’) </li></ul><ul><li>Context </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Patent protection not always appropriate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need of new specific rights </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need of European harmonization </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Implementation in EU Member States </li></ul><ul><li>Grant of protection to computer programs as literary works </li></ul><ul><li>(France: Since Act of 3 July 1985, Directive implementation Act of 10 May 1994) </li></ul>
  8. 8. Software protection (3) <ul><li>Copyright protection </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Authorship’ of computer programs (EC Software Directive, art. 2) </li></ul><ul><li>What is ‘originality’ for a computer program? </li></ul><ul><li>Judges choose patent (‘anteriority’, ‘novelty’) or copyright terminology (but different from classic court requirements for literary works: ‘intellectual contribution‘, cf. French Cour de cassation, 1986, Pachot ) </li></ul><ul><li>Specific copyright protection </li></ul><ul><li>Reduced moral rights </li></ul><ul><li>Specific licensing rules: </li></ul><ul><li>Context of software creation: working contract (EC Software Directive, art. 2.3) </li></ul><ul><li>Rights ownership to employer </li></ul>
  9. 9. Software protection (4) <ul><li>Exclusive rights of software rightholders </li></ul><ul><li>(EC Software Directive, art. 4) </li></ul><ul><li>Right of reproduction </li></ul><ul><li>Right of distribution </li></ul><ul><li>Right of translation, adaptation, arrangement and any other alteration of computer program </li></ul>
  10. 10. Software protection (5) <ul><li>Exceptions to exclusive rights </li></ul><ul><li>No private copying exception </li></ul><ul><li>Back-up copy </li></ul><ul><li>‘ The making of a back-up copy by a person having a right to use the computer program may not be prevented by contract insofar as it is necessary for that use .’ (Art. 5.2 of Software Directive) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ie: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There must be a license </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The copy must be necessary for the legitimate use of software </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Restrictive interpretation: only one copy may be allowed (Fr) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>French law prohibits private copy other than ‘back-up copy’ </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>The legitimate software user has the right ‘ to observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program ’ . (Art. 5.3) </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Decompilation’ (‘reverse engineering’) </li></ul><ul><li>The software reproduction is allowed where this ‘ reproduction of the code and translation (...) are indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs ’ . (Art. 6) </li></ul>
  11. 11. Software protection (6) <ul><li>Decompilation exception </li></ul><ul><li>(‘reverse engineering’) </li></ul><ul><li>Context: controversy, political compromise </li></ul><ul><li>Decompilation as such is not allowed </li></ul><ul><li>Conditions for application of decompilation right (Art. 6 of Software Directive) : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The acts are made by the licensee or by any person having a right to use a copy of a program </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The information necessary to achieve interoperability has not previously been readily available </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>These acts are confined to the parts of the original program which are necessary to achieve interoperability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The information obtained shall not be used for goals other than to achieve the interoperability of the independently created computer program </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The information obtained shall not be given to others, except when necessary for the interoperability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The information obtained shall not be used for the development, production or marketing of a computer program substantially similar in its expression, or for any other act which infringes copyright </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Shows complexity of software ‘special’ copyright protection </li></ul><ul><li>Rare case law </li></ul>
  12. 12. Software protection (7) <ul><li>‘ Interoperability’ </li></ul><ul><li>What is ‘interoperability’? </li></ul><ul><li>EC Software Directive defines interoperability as ‘ the ability to exchange information and mutually to use the information which has been exchanged ‘. </li></ul><ul><li>Beyond software protection? </li></ul><ul><li>Copyright protection technical measures must not prevent from implementation of interoperability (Cf. French Copyright Act) </li></ul><ul><li>Case: </li></ul><ul><li>‘ DVD Jon’ cracked iTunes & iPod’s technical protections for interoperability, allegedly without obstructing application of technical protection measures (ie limitation of number of copies…) </li></ul>
  13. 13. Software protection (8) <ul><li>Copyright vs patent debate </li></ul><ul><li>Old debate </li></ul><ul><ul><li>European Patent Convention (EPC) of 1973 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Exclusion of patentability for computer programs ‘as such’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>But possibilities for patent protection of computer programs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Debate updated with the Proposal for a Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions </li></ul><ul><li>Brief legislative history: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Draft Directive presented by European Commission on 20 February 2002 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>7 March 2005: EU Council adopted its common position on draft Directive (approval of draft Directive without debate) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>6 July 2005: European Parliament rejected Council common position and legislative procedure was closed </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Software protection (9) <ul><li>Copyright vs patent debate </li></ul><ul><li>Why a draft Directive on patentability of computer-implemented inventions? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Limits of copyright protection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need of harmonization of patent law: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No unifying structure with binding effect on national courts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>European Patent Office has granted some 30,000 patents for computer implemented inventions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compliance with ( WTO ) TRIPs Agreement (Art. 27.1) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Rebuttal arguments: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Patent protection can go too far ( patentability of ’business methods’...) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Influence on competition (risk of ‘patent war’ EU/US) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Patents can be a burden for enterprises </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Database protection
  16. 16. True or false? <ul><li>Databases can be protected by copyright </li></ul><ul><li>European database Directive does not grant protection to paper-databases   </li></ul><ul><li>I can make a copy of an electronic database for private use </li></ul><ul><li>A database producer can limit database use with technical protection measures </li></ul>
  17. 17. Database protection <ul><li>Instruments of database legal protection </li></ul><ul><li>Copyright </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Quasi-copyright’ </li></ul><ul><li>- Catalog rule in nordic countries’ law </li></ul><ul><li>- Dutch protection of non-original writings </li></ul><ul><li>Unfair competition, unjust enrichment </li></ul><ul><li>Property rights (rare cases) </li></ul><ul><li>ie: trespass, abuse of computer system , … </li></ul><ul><li>Contract law </li></ul><ul><li>Sui generis (database) right (EC Database Directive) </li></ul>
  18. 18. Database protection (2) <ul><li>Copyright protection </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Work of authorship’? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Facts and data per se are not protected by copyright… </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>… but compilations can be copyrighted if they are original </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Originality? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No protection of data per se </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Protection of ‘creative’ selection or arrangement (Europe and USA) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Many limitations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fair use (USA) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Private copying, quotation, science and education </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. Database protection (3) <ul><li>European Directive on the legal protection databases </li></ul><ul><li>Directive of 11 March 1996 (‘Database Directive’) </li></ul><ul><li>Context </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Copyright protection non always appropriate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need of new specific rights </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need of European harmonization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Original proposal of Database Directive in 1992 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Implementation in EU Member States </li></ul><ul><li>Database right transposed into national law: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>as a neighbouring right (Ger, Fr, Sp, It) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>in seperate database legislation (NL, B) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>as an ‘upgrade’ of catalog rule (Fin, Swe, Den) </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. <ul><li>Database Directive in a nutshell </li></ul><ul><li>Broad definition of database: </li></ul><ul><li>Electronic and non-electronic compilations (Art. 1.1): </li></ul><ul><li>‘ For the purposes of this Directive, 'database’ shall mean a collection of independent works, data or other </li></ul><ul><li>materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other </li></ul><ul><li>means. ’ </li></ul><ul><li>Two-tier protection scheme: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Copyright for original compilations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>and/or </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sui generis ‘database right’ for ‘non original’ databases </li></ul></ul>Database protection (4)
  21. 21. Database protection (5) <ul><li>Who is a database rightowner? </li></ul><ul><li>Database ‘maker’ = rightholder </li></ul><ul><li>‘ the person who takes the initiative and the risk of investing’ (Recital 41) </li></ul><ul><li>Beneficiaries of database right </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EC nationals or residents </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EC may extend protection to third countries that offer ‘comparable protection’ (‘reciprocity’) </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Database protection (6) <ul><li>Database Directive main provisions </li></ul><ul><li>No protection of data per se </li></ul><ul><li>Requirements for protection under database right: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Compilation must meet database definition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Making of database has required ‘substantial investment’ </li></ul></ul>
  23. 23. Database protection (7) <ul><li>‘ Database’ definition </li></ul><ul><li>Three criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Collection of ‘independent (…) materials’… </li></ul><ul><li>ie data must have independent meaning; </li></ul><ul><li>materials must be separable from one another without their informative, literary, artistic, musical or other value being affected </li></ul><ul><li>… ‘ arranged in a systematic or methodical way’… </li></ul><ul><li>ie not necessary for materials to have been physically stored in an organized manner; </li></ul><ul><li>virtual ‘arrangement’ (ie through database software) is sufficient </li></ul><ul><li>… ‘ individually accessible’. </li></ul><ul><li>Database must be fully searchable, but rapid retrieval is not required </li></ul><ul><li>See European Court of Justice (ECJ) jurisprudence of 9 November 2004 (4 decisions), narrowing the scope of database definition </li></ul>
  24. 24. Database protection (8) What is a ‘database’? Examples from case law <ul><li>Website </li></ul><ul><li>Telephone directory </li></ul><ul><li>TV program listing </li></ul><ul><li>Bibliographic database </li></ul><ul><li>Medical lexicon </li></ul><ul><li>Online recruitment </li></ul><ul><li>Exhibition catalogue </li></ul><ul><li>Horse racing information </li></ul><ul><li>List of hyperlinks </li></ul><ul><li>Newspaper ads </li></ul><ul><li>… </li></ul><ul><li>No ‘database’: </li></ul><ul><li>MIDI files </li></ul>Criticism: ECJ’s case law comes close to protecting basic information
  25. 25. Database protection (9) <ul><li>Database right </li></ul><ul><li>General considerations </li></ul><ul><li>Nature of database right: sui generis intellectual property right </li></ul><ul><li>Initial proposal: species of unfair competition law </li></ul><ul><li>Term of protection: 15 years (from production/publication) </li></ul><ul><li>Database right grants independant protection </li></ul><ul><li>‘ without prejudice’ to rights existing in respect of database’s contents (copyright, …) </li></ul><ul><li>Databases can be protected by technical measures (under copyright or database right) </li></ul>
  26. 26. Database protection (10) <ul><li>Database right </li></ul><ul><li>( Article 7 of Database Directive) </li></ul><ul><li>Prerequisite: </li></ul><ul><li>‘ qualitatively and/or quantitatively substantial investment in obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents ’ </li></ul><ul><li>Exclusive rights: </li></ul><ul><li>‘ right to prevent the unauthorized extraction and/or reutilization of a substantial part of the contents of a database’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Right of ‘extraction’ (ie copying, downloading) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Right of ‘reutilization’ (ie exploitation, making available) </li></ul></ul>
  27. 27. Database protection (11) <ul><li>Database right </li></ul><ul><li>What is ‘substantial investment’ ? </li></ul><ul><li>See ECJ, 9 Nov. 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Quantitative’ </li></ul><ul><li>Money, ‘sweat’, ‘effort’ </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Qualitative’ </li></ul><ul><li>Know-how, expertise </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Investment’ in what? </li></ul><ul><li>Art. 7 Database Directive: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In ‘obtaining’ (gathering and collecting) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In ‘verification’ (error checking, pudating) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In ‘presentation’ (conversion into digital form, user interface, thesaurus, index) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Example of national transposition: </li></ul><ul><li>French law did not transpose the ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ terms: </li></ul><ul><li>‘ substantial financial, technical or human investment ‘ (Art. L. 341-1 CPI) </li></ul><ul><li>Judge has to assess whether investment is ‘substantial’; varied case law (Fr: Cadremploi vs Keljob ) </li></ul>
  28. 28. Database protection (12) <ul><li>Scope of database right </li></ul><ul><li>Extraction (copying, downloading) and reutilization (making available) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Of ‘entire or substantial part of database’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ repeated and systematic extraction and/or reutilization of in substantial parts of the contents of the database’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ie use of search engines </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What is ‘substantial part’ of database contents? </li></ul><ul><li>ECJ, 9 Nov. 2004, British Horseracing Board vs William Hill : </li></ul><ul><li>‘ core data’ from large database are not ‘substantial part’, because do not reflect substantial investment </li></ul>
  29. 29. Database protection (13) <ul><li>Exceptions to database right </li></ul><ul><li>(Article 9 of Database Directive) </li></ul><ul><li>Lawful users of a database shall have the right to extract or reutilize a substantial part of a database contents: </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Extraction for private purposes of the contents of a non-electronic database’ </li></ul><ul><li>Prohibition of private copying for electronic databases </li></ul><ul><li>Justification: ‘ in particular in view of the ease with which they can be reproduced ‘ </li></ul><ul><li>(Common position of the Council of 10 July 1995) </li></ul><ul><li>’ For the purposes of illustration for teaching or scientific research’ </li></ul><ul><li>‘ For the purposes of public security or the proper performance of an administrative or judicial procedure’ </li></ul><ul><li>Rights existing in respect of database’s contents must be granted (copyright…) </li></ul><ul><li>Ex: when database is protected by technical measures under database right, copyright and exceptions to copyright must be granted </li></ul>
  30. 30. Database protection (14) Overview Copyright vs Database right <ul><li>Legal protection: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No protection of data per se </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Protection of ‘creative’ selection, ordering </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reutilization of data allowed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Term: 70 years after author’s death </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Many limitations </li></ul><ul><li>Legal protection: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No protection of data per se </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Substantial investment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reutilization of data not allowed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Term: 15 years </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Few limitations </li></ul>
  31. 31. Database protection (15) <ul><li>Databases and search engines </li></ul><ul><li>Simple hyperlinks always permitted </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Deep’ linking </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Framing’ not permitted </li></ul><ul><li>Copyright infringement, unfair competition (misleading) </li></ul><ul><li>Use of search engines </li></ul><ul><li>Past case law: use of search engine does not cause harm (Germany: Paperboy ) </li></ul><ul><li>But how about Google ? </li></ul>
  32. 32. <ul><li>Case </li></ul><ul><li>Google News (Belgium) </li></ul><ul><li>Court of first instance of Brussels, 5 Sept. 2006, COPIEPRESSE vs Google (See decision) </li></ul><ul><li>Appeal, 22 Sept. 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion : </li></ul><ul><li>Is Google (Google’s cash/Google News) legal when caching and indexing pages of news websites? </li></ul><ul><li>Should exploitation of content by search engines lead to fair compensation to copyright owners? </li></ul><ul><li>Parties’ arguments : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Copiepresse : </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Google should obtain permission before indexing pages that carry copyright notices ‘ </li></ul></ul><ul><li>‘ Google damages publishers’ ad revenue by bypassing their homepages ‘ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Google : ‘ we offer a simple way to prevent a page being cached (robot exclusion standard). Websites cannot ignore it. If they do not use robot exclusion standard, they know their pages are cached ’. = Opt-out system, implied licence argument. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Ruling : </li></ul><ul><li>Google infringed copyright and breached database rules because Copiepresse members had not been asked for permission . </li></ul>Database protection (16)
  33. 33. Database protection (17) <ul><li>Evaluation of Database Directive </li></ul><ul><li>Are legislative changes needed? </li></ul><ul><li>Report on Database Directive was published by European Commission on 12 December 2005 </li></ul><ul><li>Report’s basis : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Online survey addressed to the European database industry </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gale Directory of Databases (‘GDD’), which is the largest existing database directory and contains statistics indicating the growth of the global database industry since the 1970s </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Report’s criticism : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Vague terms used in Directive to define ‘sui generis’ right have caused considerable legal uncertainty </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Scope of ‘sui generis’ right was severely curtailed in a series of judgments rendered by ECJ in November 2004 (see decisions) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Economic impact of ‘sui generis’ right on database production is unproven </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Open consultation will be concluded with final assessment by European Commission </li></ul>
  34. 34. Conference on interoperability Faculté Jean Monnet, Sceaux Université Paris Sud 10 November 2006 (from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.) Registration at colloque@ interoperabilite .net

×