10 things to know about copyright and software; Lexology, June 20, 2023

Gowling WLG - Matt Hervey , Lexology; 10 things to know about copyright and software

"8. Other people can copy what your software does …

You can enforce your copyright against someone copying your code, not copying what your software does. Copyright protection only applies to "expression" not ideas and principles. Under UK and EU law, if someone has lawful access to your software (e.g. someone you have licensed to use it) they are entitled to study and test the way it functions to figure out (and copy) the ideas and principles underlying the software. In fact, any contractual provision to the contrary is null and void.

9. … so consider patent protection

Unlike copyright, patents grant you a 20-year monopoly over what your software does: you can stop other people doing the same thing and it does not matter whether they copied you or came up with the same idea independently. Getting patents for software is not straightforward and needs specialist advice on what is possible. You may also want to check if other people have patents covering what you want to do. Our Patents team can advise you on any challenges you face in a number of jurisdictions.

10. … and trade secrets 

Where patent protection is not possible or desirable, keeping the code and workings of your software secret may be the best option. Restrict access to source code (and AI-related assets such as training data, hyperparameters, models and outputs) with password protection, firewalls, access logs, etc. Use APIs to restrict third-party access to source or compiled code and considering restricting the throughput of access to your API (the performance of AI models can be partially reverse engineered quickly given unrestricted access to inputs and outputs).

Put in place training, policies and contractual terms with employees, contractors and collaborators for the protection, use and potential disclosure of trade secrets. Bake this into you IP strategy and procedures to benefit from the enforcement options for trade secrets and confidential information. Having good procedures helps to protect both your own secrets and third-party secrets entrusted to you … and to stop employees and contractors bringing unwanted third-party secrets into your business."

Into the Sparkly Heart of Zazzle’s Font War; Slate, January 24, 2023

HEATHER TAL MURPHY, Slate; Into the Sparkly Heart of Zazzle’s Font War

"In filings pushing to dismiss the suit, Zazzle blasted back that a font cannot be protected by copyright in the United States. Multiple lawyers verified this. Indeed, from a copyright standpoint, it’s irrelevant how beloved a font is, says Tyler Ochoa, a professor specializing in copyright law at Santa Clara University’s School of Law...

But here is where the case relates to the emerging debate around artificial intelligence. Laatz also argues that the company stole the Blooming Elegant Trio font software. Whenever we select a font, whether in Google Docs or Instagram stories, the application is relying on software to indicate not only what each letter looks like, but how those letters should relate to one another. Many designers draw each letter in a font-making tool and then allow that tool to generate the software for them, said Stacy Terry, a font designer in New Orleans. Still, as easy as that may sound, it took Terry six months of fine-tuning to create her first font.

“The output of an A.I. is not copyrightable,” said Mr. Ochoa, unless human creativity is combined with AI. Similarly here, you can protect font software by copyright, he said, but only if more than a minimal amount of human creativity, such as coding, played a role in producing it. So how do you define human creativity?

The answer, in this case, highlights the stark difference between the way the law and fellow creatives dole out credit to the imagination. Proving that Laatz played a key role will likely come down to proving that she wrote code by hand, said Christopher Sprigman, a professor at NYU Law and author of the book The Knockoff Economy: How Imitation Sparks Innovation. He points to an exchange that Zazzle lawyers included between Laatz and the United States Copyright Office in their motion to dismiss the case. The examiner asked her to clarify whether the program was “hand-coded by a human author,” because it could not be registered if it was generated by a font program. Laatz says she hand-coded the designs and instructions in the font data, but Zazzle’s lawyer cast doubt on this."

Patents harder to obtain now, attorney [sic] say; Tulsa Business & Legal News, March 17, 2017

Ralph Schaefer, Tulsa Business & Legal News; 

Patents harder to obtain now, attorney [sic] say

"Back in 1899, Charles H. Duell, then-commissioner of the U.S. patent office, said “everything that can be invented has been invented” and the office should be closed.

Duell should have fast-forwarded 118 years to look at what has happened as technology has exploded and changed the face of the world. He would get a different perspective from four GableGotwals lawyers who are facing challenges the 19th century commissioner could not have imagined.

Todd A. Nelson, Scott R. Zingerman, James F. Lea III and David G. Woodral are registered patent attorneys."

Stupid Patent of the Month: IBM Patents Out-of-Office Email; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), February 28, 2017

Daniel Nazer, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); 

Stupid Patent of the Month: IBM Patents Out-of-Office Email

"Update: March 1, 2017 Today IBM told Ars Technica that it "has decided to dedicate the patent to the public" and it filed a formal disclaimer at the Patent Office making this dedication. While this is just one patent in IBM's massive portfolio, we are glad to learn that it has declared it will not enforce its patent on out-of-office email.

On January 17, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted IBM a patent on an out-of-office email system. Yes, really.

United States Patent No. 9,547,842 (the ’842 Patent),“Out-of-office electronic mail messaging system,” traces its history to an application filed back in 2010. That means it supposedly represents a new, non-obvious advance over technology from that time. But, as many office workers know, automated out-of-office messages were a “workplace staple” decades before IBM filed its application. The Patent Office is so out of touch that it conducted years of review of this application without ever discussing any real-world software."

The Fight for the "Right to Repair"; Smithsonian.com, 7/13/16

Emily Matchar, Smithsonian.com; The Fight for the "Right to Repair" :

"The problem, Gordon-Byrne says, began in earnest in the late 1990s. Companies were increasingly embedding software in their products, and claiming that software as their intellectual property. Companies would argue that they needed to control repairs as a way of maintaining security and customer experience, reasons Gordon-Byrne calls “all fake.”...

The problem isn’t limited to traditional home electronics. A farmer may have paid for his or her John Deere tractor, a piece of farm equipment that can run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. But John Deere still owns the software that runs the tractor, and trying to fix it without going to an authorized repair center could put the farmer afoul of copyright laws. This means that, in order to make legal repairs, a farmer in a rural area might have to haul a broken 15-ton tractor for hundreds of miles to an authorized dealer or repair shop. In the harvest season, this could mean a crushing loss of revenue.

Nor does the problem only harm consumers. Independent repair professionals, from camera shop owners to computer technicians, suffer, saying the lack of access to repair parts and manuals makes them unable to do their jobs."

Oracle-Google Dispute Goes to Heart of Open-Source Software; New York Times, 5/19/16

Quentin Hardy, New York Times; Oracle-Google Dispute Goes to Heart of Open-Source Software:

"With jury deliberations expected to start next week, whether it makes sense to nontechies that Google, as Mr. Page contends, engaged in “established industry practice” and not old-fashioned copyright infringement could have a significant impact on how the technology industry creates new products.

The copyrights that are crucial to the trial are related to open-source software, which is created and shared for general use. Open-source technology is at the heart of many current innovations, from Google’s Android to the hardware going into giant cloud-computing data centers.

“The open-source community will heave a huge sigh of relief if Google wins, and will be very worried if Oracle wins,” said Pamela Samuelson, professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley. “It will have a chilling effect.”"