Joanna Buchalska
ABSTRACT
The subject matter of this presentation is legal protection of interface. This topic seems to be very important due to the multidimensional nature of the protection and its ambiguity. In particular, the presentation will focus on indication of the protection of interfaces under the two legal systems - copyright law and industrial property law.
A judgment of the European Court of Justice dated 22 December 2010, C-393/09 has introduced significant changes in the protection of interfaces as objects of copyright, where the court indicated that a graphic user interface is not a form of expression of a computer program within the meaning of Article 1 [2] of Directive 91/250 on the legal protection of computer programs, and cannot be protected by copyright as a computer program under that directive. This position has been strongly criticized in the legal doctrine.
- 648 F. Supp. 1127, 231 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 700 (N.D. Cal. 1986){14}Google Scholar
- Bainbridge D., Intellectual property, Harlow: Pearson Education 2010, p. 563 {27}, {31}, {33}Google Scholar
- Barta J., Markiewicz R., Prawo autorskie (Copyright law), Warszawa 2010, p. 302 {8}Google Scholar
- Beer J., Burri M., Transatlantic copyright comparisons: making available via hyperlinks in the European Union and Canada, E.I.P.R. 2014, Nr, 36(2), p. 95--105 {18}Google Scholar
- Bently L., Sherman B., Intellectual property law, New York: Oxford University Press 2009, p. 628 {27}, {33}, p.634 {48}, {49}Google Scholar
- Bieńczyk D., Zezwolenie na dekompliacje programu komputerowego w świetle prawa wspólnotowego, (Permission for computer program decompilation under community law), available in LEX program {22} Buchalska J., Treść prawa z rejestracji wzoru przemysłowego, Warszawa 2013, p.123 (Right of the registered community design) {59}Google Scholar
- C-299/99, Zb. Orz. 2002, p. I-5475 {59}Google Scholar
- Case C-5/08 Infopaq International, C-5/08, ECR I-6569 {20}Google Scholar
- Closa D., Gardiner A., Giemsa F. and Machek J., Patent Law for Computer Scientists: Steps to Protect Computer-Implemented Inventions" (Heidelberg: Springer, 2010), p.4--8 {62} Google ScholarDigital Library
- Colston C., Middlenton K., Modern Intellectual property law, London: Cavendish Publishing Limited 2005, p. 428 {27}, {33}Google Scholar
- Cordery B., Better by design, "Managing Intellectual Property" 2007, nr 4, p. 56--57 {27}, {29}, {33}Google Scholar
- Cornish W., Llewelyn D., Intellectual property: patents, copyrights, trademarks and allied rights, London: Sweet & Maxwell 2003, p. 434 {46}, {55}Google Scholar
- Decision of OHIM of 03 April 2007, No ICD 000003150, on Lindner Recyclingtech GmbH v. Lars Fransson, http://oami.europa.eu/pdf/design/invaldec/ICD%20000003150%20decision%20(EN).pdf, similarly on hairbrush shape in decision of OHIM of 02 August 2007, No ICD 000003382, on Gioro s.r.l. v. Thane Direct Company, http://oami.europa.eu/pdf/design/invaldec/ICD%20000003382%20decision%20(EN).pdf, Decision of OHIM z 1 december 2005 r., nr ICD 000000867 w sprawie Ampel 24 Vertriebs-GmbH & Co KG przeciwko Daka Research Inc., http://oami.europa.eu/pdf/design/invaldec/000225073-0001.pdf {54}Google Scholar
- Decision of the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland of 26 March 2008., Sp 461/06, Sp. 463/06 {54}Google Scholar
- Der Rechtschutz von Computerspielen, Benutzeroberflächen und Computerkunst (w:) M. Lehmann (red.), Rechtsschutz und Verwertung von Computerprogrammen, wyd. 2, Köln 1993 {S. Schlatter 1993} S. Schlatter 1993, nb 1., fliska 95 {4}Google Scholar
- Dereń A., Prawo własności przemysłowej (Industrial property law), Bydgoszcz 2001, p. 30 {36}Google Scholar
- Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs, paragraph 10 {3}Google Scholar
- Dz.U.UE.L.1993.290.9 {11}Google Scholar
- Dz.U.UE.L.2009.111.16, further on as a Directive 2009/24 {10}Google Scholar
- Ecija H., Intellectual Property Protection For Software In Spain, The John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law 1996, nr 14, p. 768 {13}Google Scholar
- European Design Protection. Commentary to Directive and Regulation Proposals, red. M. Franzosi, Hague: Kluwer Law International 1996, p. 36 {27}, {30}, {33}, {36}, p. 57 {40}Google Scholar
- Examination Manual on Community Design, finalized in November 2007, documents made available by the Department for Community designs of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market {32}, {33}Google Scholar
- Guarda P., Looking for a feasible form of softwear protection: copyright or patent, is that the question? EIRP 20013, No 35, p. 448 {16}Google Scholar
- Hoppen N, Software Innovations and Patents: A Simulation Approach (Stuttgart: Springer, 2005), p.16--20 {62}Google Scholar
- Howe M., Russell-Clarke and Howe on Industrial Designs, London: Sweet & Maxwell 2005, p. 34 {50}, {52}Google Scholar
- Jóźwiak B., Wynalazki urzeczywistniane za pomocą komputera w wybranych systemach prawnych (Inventions materialised with computer in selected legal systems). Available in LEX program {62}Google Scholar
- Judgement of the Court of Justice of 1 March 2012, C-604/10, LEX No 1112476, www.eur-lex.europa.eu {61}Google Scholar
- Judgement of the Court of Justice of 2 May 2012, C-406/10, LEX No 1143218, www.eur-lex.europa.eu {60}Google Scholar
- Kępiński J., Definicja wzoru przemysłowego oraz warunki jego ochrony, (Industrial design definition and its protection conditions) "Przegląd Ustawodastwa Gospodarczego" (Economic legislation monitor) 2007, No 9, p. 29 {46}Google Scholar
- Lee Y.H., Play again? Revisiting the case for copyright protection of gameplay in videogames, E.I.P.R. 2012, Nr 34(12), p. 865--874 {18}Google Scholar
- Matusiak I., Gry komputerowe jako przedmiot prawa autorskiego (Computer games as a subject of copyright law), Warszawa 2013, p. 100 {5}, p.199 {9}, p. 127 {15}Google Scholar
- Nowicka A., Prawnoautorska i patentowa ochrona programów komputerowych (Copyright and patent protection of computer programs), Warszawa 1995, p. 48 {1}Google Scholar
- Nunn P., Cracking the code: copyright law and its elusive grail, E.I.P.R. 2007, nr 29(4), p. 156 {13}Google Scholar
- Official Journal L 167, 22/06/2001 P. 0010--0019 {19}Google Scholar
- Okoń M., Modyfikacja i opracowanie programu komputerowego w polskim prawie autorskim, (Modification and computer program compilation) ZNUJ 2010, z. 110, p. 37 {22}Google Scholar
- Onslow R. Copyright infringement and software emulation - SAS Inc v World Programming Limited, E.I.P.R. 2013, Nr 35(6), p. 352--356 {18}Google Scholar
- Pisarek W., Słownik terminologii medialnej (Dctionary of media terminology), Kraków 2006, p. 53--54 {2}Google Scholar
- Poźniak-Niedzielska M., Ochrona wzorów przemysłowych w prawie europejskim (Industrial design protection in the European law), Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 2007, nr 1, p. 4 {24}, p. 5 {39}Google Scholar
- Poźniak-Niedzielska M., Pojęcie wspólnotowego wzoru przemysłowego (Community industrial design) (w:) M. Poźniak-Niedzielska, J. Sieńczyło-Chlabicz, Europejskie prawo wzorów przemysłowych (European industrial design law), Warszawa 2010, p. 25 {24}Google Scholar
- Poźniak-Niedzielska M., Wzór wspólnotowy (w:) Compilation of papers from the Polish Conference "Ochrona znaków towarowych, wzorów przemysłowych i oznaczeń geograficznych w Polsce po akcesji do Unii Europejskiej" (Trade marks, industrial designs and geographical marks protection in Poland after joining EU), held in Warsaw on 20 April 2004 roku, Warszawa 2004, p. 56 {24}Google Scholar
- Poźniak-Niedzielska M., Wzory zdobnicze i ich ochrona (Decorative design and their protection), Warszawa 1978, p. 53 {34}Google Scholar
- Proposal for a Council Directive on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ 1989, C 91, p. 4; 'the Proposal for a directive') {27}Google Scholar
- Remjasz A., Glosa do wyroku TS z dnia 22 grudnia 2010, C-393/09 (On judgement of the Court of Justice of 22 December 2010). Available in LEX program {21}Google Scholar
- Schlotelburg M., Design protection for technical products, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2006, nr 10, vol. 1, p. 677--678 {50}, {53}Google Scholar
- Schlotelburg M., The Community design right in practice, "Managing Intellectual Property" 2002, nr 7, p. 22 {27}, {33}, {41}Google Scholar
- Sołtysiński S., Projekty wynalazcze (Invention law) (in:) J. Szwaja, A. Szajkowski, System prawa własności intelektualnej (Intellectual property law), Warszawa 1990, p. 32 {37}Google Scholar
- Stone D., European Union Design Law. A Practitioners' Guide. Oxford: University Press 2012, p. 21 {53}, p. 64 {58} Suthersanen U., Design law in Europe, London: Sweet & Maxwell 2000, p. 29 {27}, {33}, p. 33 {48}Google Scholar
- Sykes J., Intellectual property on Designs, London: LexisNexis 2005, p. 136 {47}, p. 139 {50}, {51}Google Scholar
- Szczepanowska-Kozłowska K., Czy klocek Lego jest kształtem niezbędnym do osiągnięcia efektu technicznego? (Is a Lego block a necessary shape for technical effect?) -- on judgement of Court of Justice of 14.09.2010 on C-48/09 P Lego Juris A/S v. Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market and Mega Brands Inc., "European Court Monitor" 2011, No 1, p. 45--50 {26}, {45}Google Scholar
- Szczepanowska-Kozłowska K., Pojęcie wzoru przemysłowego -- między funkcjonalnością a estetyką (Industrial design -- functionality and aesthetics), "Przegląd Prawa Handlowego" 2010, nr 3, p. 11 {28}Google Scholar
- Szczepanowska-Kozłowska, Zdolność rejestracyjna wzoru w prawie Unii Europejskiej (Design registrability in EU law), "Przegląd Prawa Handlowego" 2005, nr 3, p. 46 {56}Google Scholar
- Szewc A., Przedmioty własności przemysłowej (przedmioty ochrony) (Industrial property subjects) (in:) Szewc A., Jyż G., Prawo własności przemysłowej (Industrial property law), Warszawa 2011, p. 102 {26}Google Scholar
- The last element was indicated in Examination Manual on Community Design, however this paragraph was not regarded an elementnot excluded from the design definition, as according to definitione in Article 3 (a) of Regulation 6/2002 the design is not obliged to have moveable elements {33}Google Scholar
- The proposal of April 13, 2011 by the European Commission of a Unitary Patent Package R.M. Hilty, T. Jaeger, M. Lamping, and H. Ulrich, The Unitary Patent Package: Twelve Reasons for Concern" (2012), MPI, http://www.ip.mpg.de {63}Google Scholar
- Tischner A., Komentarz do art. 102 p.w.p. (in: ) Prawo własności przemysłowej. Komentarz., red. P. Kostański (Industrial property law), Warszawa 2010, p. 560 {26}Google Scholar
- Trittion G., Intellectual property in Europe, London: Sweet & Maxwell 2008, p. 564 {27}, {29}, {33}Google Scholar
- Vantsiouri P., A legislation in bits and pieces; the overlapping anti-circumvention provisions of the Information Society Directive, the Software Directive and the Conditional Access Directive and their implementation in the UK, E.I.P.R. 2012, No. 34(9), p. 587--598 {18}Google Scholar
- Wojciechowska A., Pojęcie wzoru przemysłowego (Industrial design notion) (in:) System Prawa Prywatnego. Prawo własności przemysłowej (Private law system. Industrial property law), Tom 14 B, red. R. Skubisz, Warszawa 2012, p. 55 {26}Google Scholar
Index Terms
- User Interface: Legal Protection
Recommendations
Lessons in Copyright Activism: K-12 Education and the DMCA 1201 Exemption Rulemaking Process
Digital learning is being transformed by changes in copyright law. This article discusses the author's personal journey as a copyright education activist through two rounds of rulemaking proceedings before the Copyright Office concerning the anti-...
IP 2013-2014: Looking Forward and Looking Back
There were some interesting developments last year in intellectual property law, and 2014 is shaping up to bring about some significant court decisions, particularly in patent and copyright law. The Web extra at http://youtu.be/Od5gQNnD_8Y is an audio ...
Compulsory licensing of patents
The compulsory license is a concept that has been an accepted part of American intellectual property ever since the US Copyright Act of 1909. It has been recognized internationally via the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic ...
Reviews
Chaim M Scheff
Hello, European Union (EU) 21st century software-driven-everything activists. EU copyright protection included an interface's look and feel (video games, robotic surgery controllers, smartphones, global positioning system (GPS) navigators, and so on), because interfaces were forms of expression, while EU industrial property (patent) protection was/but-was-not for new, useful, and not obvious aspects of interface functionality, because those have innovations. Now, the European Court of Justice (December 22, 2010, C-393/09) has decided that interfaces are not a form of expression within the scope of copyright protection. Confused__?__ Actual software code lines (performing the interface) are still protected, just like literary works, but the interfaces enabled are not copyright protected because that's functional (and thus subject matter for industrial patenting). Did your genius programmer design interfaces intuitive to average five-year-olds, or did you spend millions on industrial designers and psychophysics/ergonomic experts to compare learning curves and functional efficiencies of various interfaces__?__ Perhaps, because patent protection (especially for software in Europe) was/is a virtual legal impossibility, you relied on copyright protection for your masterwork user interface. Announcement: Tough luck, EU people; it ain't protected no more! So if your interface design was pure customer magic, then all the "new" look-alike copycat interfaces get that magic for free. Neurologically speaking, the EU intellectual property organism brain seems lobotomized-no more coordination between the left-brain (creative) copyright side and the right-brain (functional) patent side. Now, to understand this pathological uncreative dysfunctional decision in much greater detail, and to find some viable proactive options, I suggest this paper. Read it and weep. Online Computing Reviews Service
Access critical reviews of Computing literature here
Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.
Comments