Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

AC LORRAIN - INT course of Intellectual property law


Published on

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

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 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