Intellectual Property

Boston College Law School

March 18, 2009

Software – Copyright – Fair Use

Lewis Galoob Toys v. Nintendo

NintendoNES

Nintendo OS

Cartridges

Game Genie

ClearPlay

Reverse Engineering

Decompile

} Var {for variable function …} num, count, primes, …. Begin {of program} {*****initialize var … num :=2;{the prime num … count :=0;{number of pri … times :=0;{number of col … {*****ask user how many … write (‘How many prime … read (primes); writeln; writeln; {carriage returns} writeln;

Source Code

11101001 01111001 0010110010010000 10010000 1100110110101011 01000011 0110111101110000 01111001 0110010001010010 01001100 0100000101101110 01100011 0000001000000100 00000000 1011001111101001 01111001 0010110010010000 10010000 1100110110101011 01000011 0110111101110000 01111001 0110010001010010 01001100 0100000101101110 01100011 0000001000000100 00000000 1011001111101001 01111001 0010110010010000 10010000 1100110110101011 01000011 0110111101110000 01111001 01100100

Object Code

Sega OS

Sega v. Accolade

Sega Genesis

SegaLicenseeLicenseeLicenseeLicensee Accolade

Sega v. Accolade• Results

– Intermediate copying not always privileged– Functionality does not eliminate all protection– Section 117 does not privilege the copying– Intermediate copying is fair use

• Commercial purpose, yes, but okay

• Harm to market not dispositive, where fair compet.

• Nature of work is functional

• Copied the entire work

Sony v. Connectix

Sony Playstation

Sony BIOS

SonyLicenseesLicenseesLicenseesLicensees

MAC

VGS

Gottschalk v. BensonBinary Coded Decimal

53 = “5” “3”0101 0011

Pure Binary Number

53 = 1101010101 0011 110101

The method of converting signals from binary coded decimal form intobinary which comprises the steps of (1) storing the binary coded decimal signals in a re-entrant shift register, (2) shifting the signals to the right by at least three places, until there is a binary 1 in the second position of said register, (3) masking out said binary 1 in said second position of said register, (4) adding a binary 1 to the first position of said register, (5) shifting the signals to the left by two positions, ….

Cases After Benson

• Parker v. Flook (1978)– Method for updating alarm limits on computer to monitor pressure

– Held unpatentable: nothing more than an algorithm

• Diamond v. Diehr (1981)– Method for curing rubber w/ steps calculated by computer

– Held patentable: part of larger process, even if algorithm is the only new feature

• Freeman-Walter-Abele Test– (1) Does patent claim recite algorithm directly or indirectly?

– (2) If so, is invention as a whole nothing more than algorithm?

State Street Bank v. Signature

PooledMutualFund

A data processing system …comprising: (a) a computer processor means for processing data; (b) storage means for storing data …; (c) first means for initializing the storage medium; (d) second means for processing data regarding assets in the portfolio and each of the funds from a previous day and data regarding increases or decreases in each of the funds’ assets and allocating the percentage share that each fund holds in the portfolio; ….

Software Patentability

• Requirements for Patentability– Subject Matter– Utility– Novelty– Nonobviousness– Enablement

Software Patents Issued by PTO

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 1999

Patents Issued

Nonobviousness

• Software difficulties– Lack of experienced patent examiners– No good classification system– No good body of documented prior art

• PTO efforts to address– Hiring experienced patent examiners– Cooperating w/ industry to document prior art– More involvement of industry in examination

Amazon v. Barnesandnoble

• Prior art references– Compuserve Trend

(stock chart purchase)

– Web Basket (shopping cart using cookies)

– Yesil Book (ref. to “Instant Buy Option”)

– Oliver’s Market (shopping cart)

– ‘780 Patent (web page delivery)

Hypothetical

• Facts– You have a programmer friend w/ software– Wants to market a program over the internet

• Questions– Does he need to worry about other patents?– Can he secure a patent himself?

Evaluation

• Arguments against– Increases costs of creating new programs

• Search costs• Licensing costs• Attorneys fees

– Advantages large players over small players– Not necessary– PTO ill-equipped to issue

• Arguments for– No different from other industries– Becoming increasingly capital intensive (e.g. Windows)– PTO issues are transitional issues

Sui Generis Proposals• Menell

– Based on patent system: same requirements– Faster approval– Shorter duration– Privilege for reverse engineering– Compulsory licensing of standards

• Samuelson, et al.– Sui generis framework– Short period of anti-cloning protection– Registration and licensing system

Administrative

• Next Class– Start Trademark

• Read through VI.C.1 – Distinctiveness

Administrative

• Next Class– Finish Software

• Read V.C and D.