Development of legal regulation of relations, associated with a computer program
Abstract
The law enforcement and legislative practice of most states followed the path of protecting computer programs by copyright law. It has happened just because the model of copyright protection of the computer programs is cheap-er and faster procedure than the patent protection. Patent protection, on the other hand, requires a fairly expensive and long-term examination of a computer program for global innovation, during which the object itself may become obsolete and unpopular with potential users. Therefore, the copyright method of protecting computer programs has received preferential recognition.
It is concluded that to the present day, conceptual methodological and legal approaches have not been developed for the protection of computer programs as such using the norms of patent or copyright law. But by themselves, under certain conditions, computer programs and some of their components may be subject to patent protection. That is why many countries are moving towards combining copyright and patent protection of computer programs.
References
[1] Circular 61. Copyright Regisration of Computer Program//http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ61.pdf
[2] Copyright Law of the United States of America Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code//http://www.cop-yright.gov/title17
[3] Mamiofa I.E. The practice of protecting inventions related to methods of obtaining, transforming and transmitting information. Leningrad. LDNTP. 1970. 34 p.
[4] Gelb A.B. On the problem of expediency and the possibility of patenting algorithms and computer programs. Tallinn. 1973. 64 p.
[5] Mamiofa I.E. New in the issue of protection of algorithms and computational programs abroad // Questions of invention. 1971. No. 1. P. 21-26.
[6] Popova I.V. Computer software as an object of copyright // Law and Democracy. Interuniversity collection of scientific papers. Issue 8. Minsk. 1997. P. 95-103.
[7] Mamiofa I.E. Foreign practice of patent protection of algorithms, programs, codes for computers and communications. // Questions of invention. 1972. No. 9. P. 20-25.
[8] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) (Authentic text) // URL: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/ru/other_treaties/details.jsp?group_id=22&treaty_id=231.
[9] Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (as amended on September 28, 1979) // URL: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/treaties/ru/berne/trt_berne_001ru.pdf
[10] Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Chapter 48, incorporating amendments up to the Digital Economy Act 2017) // URL:http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/ru/text.jsp?file_id=474030
[11] Titov A.P. Legal protection of computer programs and databases. M .: Institute of technology. Cybernetics of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, 2001, PP. 16–17.
[12] Welsh, Marshall J. International Protection of Intellectual Property // Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal. 1992. Vol.1. P. 43.
[13] WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) 1996 // URL : https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_226-ac-cessible1.pdf
[14] Dozortsev V.A. Exclusive rights and their development. Rights to the results of intellectual activity. M .: Library “De jure”, 1994. P.52.
[15] Legal protection of computer programs and databases. / Borovskaya E.A., Ermakovich S.L., Kudashov V.I., Losev S.S., Uspensky A.A. Under the general ed. Losev S.S., Uspensky A.A. Minsk, 2010. 246 p.
[16] Dobryakova NI, Bakhmetyeva MA Legal protection of computer programs in the legislation of Russia and the United States // Human capital and vocational education No 1 (9) 2014. P.76-82.
[17] Case Apple Сomputer Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. 714 F. 2d 1240. 3d Cir. (1983). // URL : https://openjurist.org/714/f2d/1240/apple-computer-inc-v-frank-lin-computer-corporation.
[18] Case Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, Inc. 516 U.S. 233 (1996) // URL : https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/117991/lotus-development-corp-v-borland-international-inc/
[19] Case Apple Computer, Inc. V. Microsoft Corp. 35 F. 3d 1435. 9 Cir. (1994) // URL : https://openjurist.org/35/f3d/1435/apple-computer-inc-v-microsoft-corporation-apple-computer-inc
[20] Leahy-Smith America Invents Act // URL : http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ pkg/BILLS-112hr1249enr/pdf/BILLS112hr1249enr.pdf.
[21] Revinsky O.V., Polonskaya I.V. Comparison of court decisions in the USA, Great Britain and the EPO on patents related to computer software // Problems of industrial property. 1998. No. 12. P. 111-121.
[22] Mamiofa I.E. Categories of patentable objects in accordance with the law and judicial practice of the United States // Issues of invention. 1987. No. 2. P.31.
[23] Husley W., Peterman A., Sprinkle S. Recent Developments in Patent Law // Texas Intellerctual Property Law Journal. 1995. No10. P.1081.
[24] Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions. Patent and Trademark Office. United States Department of Commerce // Federal Register: February 28, 1996. Vol.61. No 40.
[25] Japanese Copyright Act// URL :http://www.cric.or.jp/english/clj/ocl.html
[26] Nishi M. Recent amendments to the Patent act of Japan // Less Nouvelles. 2012. V. XLVII. No1. Р. 6;
[27] Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Copyright Act, as amended up to Act of September 1, 2017) // URL: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/ru/text.jsp?file_id=474263
[28] German Intellectual Property Law = DeutscheGesetzezumgeistigenEigentum; per. with him. / [IN. Bergmann, introduced, comp.]; scientific. ed. T.F. Yakovleva. M .: InfotropicMedia, 2017. 548 p.
[29] Gavrilov E.P. Legal protection of algorithms and computer programs in the USSR: current state and prospects // Problems of invention. 1990. No. 1. P. 1-13.