• Save
AC LORRAIN - INT course of Intellectual property law
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

AC LORRAIN - INT course of Intellectual property law

on

  • 2,873 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,873
Views on SlideShare
2,867
Embed Views
6

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

3 Embeds 6

http://www.aclorrain.fr 4
http://aclorrain.fr 1
http://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

AC LORRAIN - INT course of Intellectual property law AC LORRAIN - INT course of Intellectual property law Presentation Transcript

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