This thesis examines the development of copyright and patent protection in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia and proposes that intellectual property is not the correct mechanism for protecting computer software. Both copyright and patent protection are evaluated in relation to their application to protecting the various elements of software.
The increased desire for patent protection of software in the United States has recently impacted the debate over the correct regime for intellectual property protection. There has also been a corresponding restriction in the application of copyright protection by the courts. Combined with an undercurrent of sui generis software legislation being advocated by academia this has lead to the situation where there is continuing uncertainty over which method of protection should be provided for software.
It will be shown that copyright is inadequate for the protection of computer software and that it does not address the correct element requiring protection. Patents, by corollary, provide protection that is excessive. The socio-economic effects of patent protection will be shown to demonstrate that it is not a worthy successor or adjunct to copyright. While copyright has attempted to protect one aspect (source code) patents have attempted to protect another (functionality). The thesis identifies the fundamental flaws in the protection offered by both regimes and proposes that they are equally unsuitable for the protection of software.
Software will be shown to possess a diverse array of elements that are largely indivisible if adequate protection is to be provided. It is proposed that software be considered as a new form of property, referred to as Binary property, which covers informational and information processing entities. Further, the existing common law principles should be applied to the aspects that are at the heart of the intellectual property protection dilemma. In reality the elements requiring protection in software are activities that wrongfully duplicate a work or replicate it to create clones. It will be shown that the common law principles of theft, trespass, breach of contract and passing-off are suitable for protecting developers from these infringements. It will also be contended that any legislative intervention should be limited so that a certain degree of replication is allowable where there is a benefit to society through technological
advancement or enhancement through standardisation. As such the application of common law principles are applied in a minimalist legalistic environment.
The minimalist approach takes the position that there should be minimal legislative intervention in the computer industry. It proposes that there should be legislative intervention to enable the existing common law to take account of computer technology and provide for its continuing impact on society that will accelerate into the next millennium. It further shows that the continuing development of computer technology will outpace intellectual property necessitating the recognition of computer software as a unique form of new property in existing jurisprudence. The application of existing common law principles of property and the reduction in the monopolistic nature of intellectual property will not only benefit the highly dynamic and creative international computer industry but it will also be in the best interests of the Australian software development industry.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/240750 |
| Date | January 1998 |
| Creators | Forsyth, Guy, N/A |
| Publisher | University of Canberra. Law |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Rights | ), Copyright Guy Forsyth |
Page generated in 0.0109 seconds