IP Protection for Software

Intellectual Property Protection for Software

The Internet, business, industry and government are heavily, if not entirely, dependent upon computer technology that in turn depends upon practically infinite intangible and modular software applications.

Software applications have existed for a half century, but application of intellectual property rights to software products is comparatively recent. Traditionally, copyright has been the most common software protection. Recently, however, patent protection has developed as perhaps the predominant, preferred form of software protection.

As we have discussed in our discussion of copyright basics here, copyright protects original works in the tangible, fixed form in which it was created. An original software work is legally protected by copyright copyright/software, because upon its creation copyright protects the expression of the work, but not a work’s underlying idea. Copyright protection of an original software work is consistent with the primary purpose of copyright protection generally: to promote the exchange of information and advancement of ideas that may benefit society and to protect an author’s economic interest in his or her creative work. A copyright holder has the exclusive right to make copies, prepare derivative works, and distribute copies for the duration of the author’s life plus seventy years. The major advantage of copyright protection lies in its simple procedure of protection.

Historically, patents were not preferred for protection of software-related intellectual property. Software was more associated with copyright because of the nature of the product analogized to the literary work of an author. But the limitations of copyright to protect only an original work in the tangible fixed form rather than an idea has led to patent protection, since patents do protect ideas an concepts, and their reduction to practice.

Patent law applies to inventions in any field of technology without discrimination, including software. Increasingly, the ways inventors and users of software thing thing about and describe it as a collection of processes, as a unique machine, or both, enabling the protection of the inventive concepts and ideas behind an original program. And this is where the usefulness of copyright alone for software has its limitations.

In 1989, the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Official Gazette published guidelines for software patenting, highlighting that a computer directed by a computer program is a statutory machine. Consequently, patent law recognizes that computer software could be patented as a machine, because a general purpose computer becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software.

A software patent owner may prevent others from making, selling, or using a patented invention for twenty years from the filing date of the patent application. Recently and currently, patent protection has supplemented if not supplanted copyright protection of software as the premier intellectual property strong protection, and in many respects has become the method of choice for effective protection of original computer programs.

The copyright and trademark lawyers at Lubin Austermuehle have over thirty-years of experience defending and prosecuting intellectual property claims for large and mid-size corporations and businesses. We are knowledgeable regarding the changes and complexities of copyright and trademark law. We are committed to fighting for our clients' property rights or defending them against baseless infringement claims at both the trial and appellate court levels. We have successfully defended large corporations in multi-million-dollar copyright or trademark infringement suits and regularly prosecute complex copyright infringement cases for computer software having achieved large six and seven figure settlements for our clients. Conveniently located in Chicago and Elmhurst, Illinois, we have successfully litigated intellectual property, trademark and copyright cases for clients all over the Chicago area. To schedule a consultation with one of our skilled attorneys, you can contact us online or give us a call at 630-333-0333.

Client Reviews
I was referred to Peter Lubin from someone in the car business to handle a law suit. From the moment I made the appointment Peter and his staff were outstanding. This wasn't an easy case, most lawyers had turned me down. However, Peter took the time to meet with me and review everything. He took on the case, and constantly communicated with me about updates and case information. We beat this non-compete agreement case in record time. I would use him again and recommend him to my closest family and friends. 5 stars is not enough to thank him for his service. Sebastian R.
I worked on two occasions with Peter Lubin and his staff. They took their time with me and discussed each and every item in detail. The group makes you feel like you are part of the family and not just another hourly charge. I recommend Peter to anyone who asks me for a referral. If you are looking for a top notch attorney at a reasonable rate, look no further than Lubin Austermuehle. Kurt A.
Excellent law firm. My case was a complicated arbitration dispute from another state. Was handled with utmost professionalism and decency. Mr. Peter Lubin was able to successfully resolve the case on my behalf and got me a very favorable settlement. Would recommend to anyone looking for a serious law firm. Great staff and great lawyers! Albey L.
I have known Peter Lubin for over 30 years. He has represented me on occasion with sound legal advice. He is a shrewd and tough negotiator leading to positive outcomes and averting prolonged legal hassles in court. He comes from a family with a legal pedigree and deep roots in Chicago's top legal community. You want him on your case. You need him on your opponents case. He won't stop fighting until he wins. Christopher G.
Peter was really nice and helpful when I came to him with an initial question about a non-compete. Would definitely reach out again, recommended to everyone. Johannes B.