COMPUTER PROGRAMS: WHAT PROTECTION
IS AVAILABLE TO THE OWNER?
ANITA ASHTON
WHAT PROTEC'UON .l:,'i .AVA:rIJ>,Br.'E Tb
COMPUTER PRex;RAMS:
The 'Computer industry ha~ come of ilge dur.ing · 't he last
:.i-wenty y.e ';"s " . Aln\ost. every ph';se, of 01\':" s life is' affec ted
'i Il some. ~anner bya computer • .... The comptite:t: p~ograi:n is ,a '
.
.
.
.
r"':
,',
"'.
,
I
,'.
'
:s e t .mf· .instructiot}s which directs the 'compute" ,to., per,form .
. !lspedfied Beri:S df maf!)etnati~al calcu'l a'tior's oil data :in
,i n a certalri orda.i: '.dur ing an ii1C""dib~y" bI:iefp,?riod , };f
',time;
The generalpu'rpose digital comput'i'r "andrts
' s uppor'ti,ng equip~erit ii;' k';oWn:as ' "hardwafe,'JWh e reas, :tlie.
st;ored progratn ,'th ? tdil;e cts the operation.odi,'the · c ~mpute:t .is.
";known
a~ " '.' · softwa:b~i.,
.:.:1.
\ Programs
"
;
.
.
or . " application programs
" . 4.
.
"
are
ei\:he~ ' ' sys tems softw.are'~
.. ,
Although
ical 'a d - ,.\
. technolog
.
,"
"
,
varices
" in ' hll.~dll'a.:e;
"have 'doininatedthe' ind;"stry··ls , advances .,
.
"
r'."
'f
'
'
.• , '
in the ' past,soft>latehassurpassed hardwar.e it(do 11 a r ,
vOluineilnd 'draws most ~'f ' therese<:\:tc'h'. a,tterit:j.ori , ~1O" i:he'
pre.s ent ' tifue. 3
'l.Jacobs, comput~r Technology ' . (Hard;lar e and Software) :
Some Legal Implications for AntitrUpt', ' Copyright and patents !
.2 , Rutgers J ., O£' so~putersanp the Law: 5,0 : (l9?P) ;;:
2.Annot. ·) '6 A)L.R.Fed. 1 '5 6 (1971)'.,
,'. 3. Wild, ' c6mputerFrOcjr:'in ' Protection: 'The 1;'leed : to Legfslate
i A Solution, 54, Cornell
. L. Rev .. 586 (l.969)
', .
,
"
'Thi's grow,th of the software volume has produced a ' parallel
growth in the number of
,4
' ·'
,.f ,~rms ..
•
~ndependent,
r
'
.
'I
specialized software
Protection for their comput~r ' progiams , i~ a
major' concern to these small software camp'a nies'.
Criminal"
prosecution" for , theft, copyright ihfringernent,
,
.
\
'
"
...
.
,tl ,
pa:tent
e rnentMd
trade-secret ';'iolatfO~sali1.
. "',',infring'
.
:
'
,
.
"
"-
'have"
been proposed as means , to secure, protection.
,,i . ' ,
,~h,~ ,'T e,xas
Court of Criminal
.
Appea~!3'
'i n Hancock,v. StateS
..
I
•
held", that adomputer program ,?onsti tutes 'proP'!'tty within :
~he meaning , of th'7', :'T'7'xas statute defining ,;,t.hepffen~e o~
't heft,.6 , 'This case dealt with an employee who ' att~mpted to
/
sell :.' c~mli'uter programs valued at two "and
'to ' a competitor ~
A
a'half ',million, dollar's '
later case, Ha.ncock v ;
.
,that the . statutory
interpretation by the
\ '
' rieck~r '7
held
T~~asc6uit' to'
,in,c iude computer "programs within: 'property, subJect to theft
'\'la s 'neither 'So unreasol).anle nor arbi~'
ary,' as to 'be ir:i'olat;i;'e
,
'
-".
4.Id.
5.402 S:W.2d 906 (TeK. J;:rim. 1966) . '
"
' 1s'.Texas
, ,statutes: ,
PenaiC6~'~ ~~'"
I
7'.379
'r. 2d552 ,: ,(5th
141S:,yerrion"s
i
'
Ch'. 1967) .'
'Ahno~.texaSr,
'of' due process.
Although this line of
reason~ng
provided
pr()gecution for 'one who stole a pl:)Clg%!lIrIIi; ,w ith the 'intent
," ,:t o ,ge,ll it to a cqmpeti tor, Texas ,appears to bfl the onli~
. jJrfsdict:
i ori. ' to apply ' this theory .
. , i
'
In 1964 the copyright Office decided to permit ,
.
,
,
r;;gis'tra~ion of ~o';Puter programs. 8
Three ' cornUtion,s
,.
wete, ;established ,f or copyright registrat~on a.J ~ 1iI. ,c hass A.
•
,
,
I
'.
"
'
. beiok:
: ; .
The elements of assembling, ' "
, ~electi~g, arranging, editing, and
li terary el'pression that went ' in,t o '
, the computation of the program,
'
are sufficient to constitute originali
, I"
authorship. ,
' '",:
: (1)
(2) fhe ' program has been 'published',
, ~il;th the require d copyright notice ,'" ,
that is : ' cop i es' bear ing ' the notice,
have been distributed o r made available
to t\1e public.
(3) The copies deposited for ' registrati on consist of Qr include r epro,ductions ' :in a language inteLligible '
to human beings . I f the only . publication
was ' in :a form 't hat cannot be p~r'c e ived , '
visually ' or read, something more (e .g '
, ,
", a print-out of the entire ptogram)
would also have to .be deposited. 9 ,
:The cry for :pate nt or copyright protecti~naros'e ' mainly ,,,
' fro~ ' concern ' over
p r ogram theft an:d
.
.
'
Plag:fai'i~~': " HO~'1'Ver,:,
', -
,', " ,
.•
'f
"
altlwugh ,a , copyright may be obtained it does" not ! i\fford ,
:"_1 .•
'
,
,
!
't,
'
,
,
.,
' 1,.
,S.lll 'Copyright,i !3~c.'BUli. 36 ' (1964).
•.
.
. ...
.
"j:
. ;
::;,
! "" ,
.' 1 , '
, 9. see Wild, supra
note 3, at 593. ,
(3)
,
",
'
!,
"
. ,
'
,
,"
,~.
1 ".
' The:'stated constitutional purpOse o,f copyright; is '
"to, J?romcptEj :tJ;1aprogress' of Science and :,us~ful ru:ts "by
:",,,,,1.1>';i.," "
~C):I;'
J,;i.'1'it"a" 'O'1rnaQ t" Al.lth";t"s,' ••l ' t,pe exclWilive '
R;iight 'Jo, ,their .• :.Writings.,lio The behe,fit '/accordEid, t;6 the,
: a~thor : has ' been vie,wed as a. "secondaty cons:lde>:ati9IL,,', lf
:Ijlut".th~ ,s Upreme. soUlit in ,1954heldt:!'at *e \ :'ecoponlic
: philqsopi
..
. ' . lY, behind the cl'a~se " eml?dWerin.9
. ~ong:r:\es$
. , , , '. t q-: '\ gra~i:,
"
,
,
" pate~ts "
.
- •
I.
'.
,
"
-
I
'
~
'
'
I .,"
.~
.
"
...., .
and ' copyrights
is the' .
convietion
, that'
'encoUl;agementr.'
"
_
. .
"
.
. ..
.,
•
,
~
';:'i' i~dl,yidual' effort, by pers;'nal gain ',~ s the: p~st' ~ay' t~
:'a dvance "pilblic welfare. ,,12 ' Thei, justification. i the'r ef6re,
;,
t.'
" I,'
,
•
,
'. '
"
.
..
"
. ,{,
•
""
"
' i~
,
:,,t, o :!grati:t:.copyrigllt
proiection
could' be. :"'th!l
persori.ki.;, !
'
,
,, \
"
~
: intentiVEl to
p~oduce
, I
,
,
"
"
, .
and, publish programS wit1lou€, ,f eat;, p (
, theft,
or, plagiarism,.
"
.,
'
"
, ~, Ijia;ior · probl~ 'i~
aPplying
copyrig~~ piotect'if'ry. to" ~:
~ C~n1Pllj;er ' program', is that the scope of s.ti?h ;P"'ot",Ctioil '
j- can '.I:ie so, iilVited and ' 1:1ncertain, in' appli\:a:t:.ion that :
"
' j
,prograinme;;:s :hesitate :to , use cOpyrightl.l fot:Prot;~c't' i;:''i1- : 1~ ·
,1 0. ::U:::.;:8::.::'c::::o::n::s::t=i:.ru: t ; ' 'I , § B
II
h_
,
I,
j
'
!
" "
'
",
;'
,' "
I ", "
. ' 11. urli{ed statks : v. paramoilnt Pi~tur:es .. ,! Inti: 1,' 33'4
.. .
,' ,
.. ... ,' .
i U ,. :S~ i31 ;:~~B (1~4B).
, -,,'h
,
12.Mazer; v > stein, '347,: ,u.S.:, 20l, 219 '
..
tl~5d): :'
:~i.~t. co~~ni ~\:. 'Cbtn'P~t~~ ..prOgramS ~ a:ncf,\ ~rop~~~d ';.:·ReY'£sicirtSi.' of'·
,! '"
} patent;· and lC6pyi:<ight 'Laws ;,\ B,l , Ha7Y:a~d ';r. ' f;~e~~ ,. 154~:(, :, ~54~(1~,~S) .
. . .' " , . . ;. : .,
.-.... . , ','
"
;
~ ,:(4)
to
copyright'
protection, not the idea contained in th~
wfilhil<j ;14
it ,' is '. only the
writing that is subject
,
'
Im,1880'
the ' Supreme Cour,t declared that:
,,
The copyright of a work on math- :'
'e matical science cannot .giv'e tathOl '1
author an e~clusive right to the , , '
, methods of operation which he pro':"
,pounq.sl ' or, to the diagrams' ~lhi';h " ,
.'he employs to eXplain , th~ i ,3,0 as
:':to
'prevent
an engineer froin usirtg
'them
.
";
"
'
,I.
,<
whc,mever E1ccasion requires. ,The '
very ',o bject :of publishing a ' bO'o k ' on',
' science or the' useful arts is ,t o
conununicate jOo the world the , usefu,l
knowledge ' it contains. 15
of the
'pr(),tection
idea as well , as . th~ ' W1'~i'ting ' is needed
By changing thfsec;juenc:;~,
f'or a , computer program.
of s,teps, '
('It' isquite possible to , legally produce ' a ,p rog:tWi diff"r~nt
:in 'appearance, hut ~, s;,n;ilar in substance , thus " defeati~g
I.
,"
'
.
\
.1 ,"
,
,
16
, "\
'
the ."opyright
,protection.
It
might
also
be,
posSible
'
,
for
.
.
.
,
,
,
; 01'\":
•
'
.
I"
infri!,g,e on 'a program copyright by loading a
' ~()
,. computer, m9J!l0ry with .. ,:, 'program readfr,oma "~()pY'iight,ed
-
)'ilagnetiC tape.
" .
,; , ,'
.
.
'
....
;
If erie
. .
•
i
.
.
authorized.J;ts' cUstc>ther~ ' t9 , loaa'
,
. I
..
-
. 1.
.:.'
'.
" !
') 1 +
:its computerl1\emorieswith programs accordil1g to ',his
,i4.37 e:F.B.
' ~ 202il(b}.
, ,
,,
l~.Baker
;,
.
v: ' Seldon, 1010.5. ~9,103.{1880". (
,
~
,
,
l6:supranote . 13, at ,1550.
, (5) ;
"
"'.'
,a il
, ..
. i
'
.,
.
,.
. 'c opyrighted flowcharts, does the program then 10'osei 1:1:s'
I
.
· cppyrights prbtecti,
o n sirice ti)~ copies do
.not b\,ar ,'the .
.' , ; ) !
. '
;' rcqui:ted statutory ., lotice?
.. . ' .
. .'
·
· In · aCt\1",:t 'pr~ctiua. trade secret is :the If\ost ·wid.l1y
'.u s ~d lliethod of 'attempting to secure legal ,protection . for
.
, . , 17
'
. ,
. ,;software .'Th;e c()~ofl law o~trade 1 ~ecrets c c~<;a;t;j.yL
~ : exten<1s(t;' compliter programs.
· r· o'
'., .'
,,:u~n'i,;the l, Pfemise
'.
This ' th\,Oty of~iilW is b~,sed'
that:
,". '
,"
:'rhe plaintiff has the right 'to ke~pl
,the, work , which he has , done" or paid ' for', '
doing :toitself. Th~' , fact th~toth'ers '
,might do s imilar work, i f they might' ,
'does , not , authQ;I1i,ze then to steal'
',
.. 18
. ,, .
. t'. ~ f"'.
,P 1 a~n
',., I' s.
;
The 'validity, ofthe common iaw theory hasbeEl~ band~ed
,I
about .in ' 5tataand. federal ,courts , in , recent
,
.. ).
'
. \
I
year~.: .~"., JUstic~'
'
131ack::ih ' his dissenting opil\ton
,
'"
,)
...
.
-
, ; , -,
>
,ekpr",ss'ed ' the opinion that :
"
. '
I
'
,',
No5tate' has a ' right to a uthorize '
kind of ' monopoly on what is' c la:j.med ' to
be't a '-ilew ;invention, except ;when a '"
. patent has' been ohtained, from the' ;
"patent ,Office ,tinder the exact~8g
"tandards ,of the pat ent", law, ' , "
' ",
'
;,
"
. ;
\
'
,
'
,',
'
'.
"
."
.. , '
.
'
I ,
.\ '
.
y
,
, 17 .Be nder ,Post-Adkins Trade '· 6ecr,e t \>P!)otect.d.onc,O"Ji CSoftwalle,
:i.Fftgers J. of computers iilnd th\,:,Law :.5 ;, (lo9? O). I:
,i is.Board ofT;t~deof ' Chicago
U .,5 . 23 ~ , ' 250;(l905). ,
', ,
: ." ,
:! . V· . \
v.' 'christie ' G~airt Co.,
(!.
. '
.
I
"
' ~ :.' .'
'.,"
1.9,;,39,5 U.5.' 676 (1969) (Black, J. dissenting).
,
•
'i .
!
l \
,., , .~ .l.
' "
: ,"
198 "
, This dissenting opinion is based upon the majority
compani!21~d
opinions in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel
Compco . corp. v.
' DaY~Brite Lighting Co.2~ ' These two cases
arose ' out of the enforcement of Illinoif;l unfaircompetitiori
The question
in sears 23 was whether
, ,
l aws:
a, state's
unfa:i;I:,,
" competi ticn 'law could, cohsistt.ntlY'
lwith'
. ( . . , ,
,
' I
' ..
~
the'
.' :
. federal laws, impose liability for or prohibit the co'Pying,
~f . an
~atent
article which is protected by neither . a :, federal
.
~.
or
c~pyright..z4
is unpa,tented
The Court held ':.that .whe·l"l an article .
and uncopyrighted, a . Sta~1' may riot '' pro..
.
..
,
, .hibi t ' 'the copying of. the article or al"a;-4 danu.ges for ,
"
. .'
,
.
,
such copying.2:; They further stated "to pr~v~nt' the copying '
to '
of an ar,ticle which represe,nts too slight .;;.,: ad'ra,;c e
:'
,
"
'
be patented .w ould be to permit the Sta,te ' t~' bfock off ,
.
'.frotn- '"'the , ~ublic
•
so~ethi"g
'J ', '
,
which . federai
,.
21.37~
.
. ,u.S~
.. ..2i~
. .; ii964).
~
22.376 . U.S. 237 ,' (i964).
, 23.376 U'~S;',: 225 ~(,~964). '
"! Q4';
Id ;
" ,'- -'
~
,
, 1'
.. ' ,
....;26.i<i
, , , .
.,
la.w ·ha'~ "said
-
"
..
,
.
',. ,
of a " kind that is , in conflict with the objectives" of
this ' 0;i~ion.27
federal ' !i'atent law according to
court ,h e re,too, held that a state cannot ' forbipthe sale
,
of .a:. copy ' of an , unpatented article.
. "
,
'/
The court :'in ' both
'c a ses, howev'.er,' neglected to mention federal ' trademark
-law.
i31ncB a shape can obtain
trad~?-rk
prOtection
29
-
this.~fasts some doubt on .the validity 0:(, the-se, decis ·i~hs ·.
~ 'J:Irade" secret:t ' protection 'as such · ls also - I?-ot mentiqned ', but.
.
,
\'
:(
'
~his
·in following
theory to its culmination i t too would
.'
,'
be outlawed.
' The ' Lear3 2ase deait directly with the , Jiiroblem ' of
' trade ;s',e cret protection and ' its possible conflict with
patent law.· Lea'r ' entered into a licensing ·agreement
,. with
Adkins for certain gyrosc6pe irnprovements;·in 1955 . with
J'
,
.
.
,. ,
"
.r
.. ;
the .condition that 'if the" Patent
·
', .
I
Off~c'E!
, ., refuses
to ipsue
a patent
. ... or
, if such patent so issued ' f~ ;' l;;~bsequentlY held
·27.rd.
.'
2B.376 U.S. ,237 (1964).
"
. 29.15
'
.
,J
I,"
U.S; .~ .;A·.
B
.
.
:
91052, note B (19,6 4) ; ',
, 30.395~.S. · 653 (1969).
(B)
invalid ••• Lear at its option shall have the right
forthwith to terminate the specific license so affected or ,
to terminate this entire agreement ..• ,,31 Adkins applied for
,
,
a patent 'in 1960.
In 1957 Lear stopped paying royalties on '
gyros produced in California.
Adkins brought a breach of
,:co,n t'r act' 'suit , and Lear t",ied to raise pa,tent invalidity
' as :a
de~ense.
The question at the center of this ', case
was ' ~hether
.' ,I
, federal ' policy bars a state from enforcing a contract ,
' r;~gtilad.ng access ' to an unpatented secr~t; "idea: 32
They
provi~ion , a~ to
hei,Lthat to enforce this contractual
',payment of, rc;>yaltiE;!s during the time p~tent validity was being
challenged
would undermine the strong feder'a l policy ,favoring
,
,"
th~ full and free use of ideas in the public domain.:P If
Lear , could prove patent inv""lidity, Lear would be, permitted
,
to aVQ'i d the pa0nent of all royal ties occur ing:' after Adkins'
'"
.
"
~.
.
.
' 1960 ,patent
issued. 34
,
In' de~ling
th~
with
,
pre-patent royalty '
"
I',
pa,yments',the' Court 'held"We should not , attempt ,t o define
in even
a limited
way the extent, i f :,nY, 't~ wllich the states
.
, I
-!' . ~
,
may properly ,act to' enforce ,the contractual rights 'Of inventors
"
3!. Id.,
672. ,
, ',' , ,t
'''I :,0'" " '
34.Id; , '
[\9 >
I
'
'0£ "tmpaterlted secret ideas. ,,35
In 1971, the Second Circuit Court of Ap.,eals discussed
'
.,
,, 36 '
37
the Sears ,Compco ,and
38
'~
dec~sions
,:,
in a case
dealing with a contractual trade secret agreement for. an
dissen~ inL~ar40
• unpatented arHcle. 39 'T hey felt that :the
{r
•
.
s h owed the inapplicability of
sears41ndcom;c~42
.
I I
to
•
the pr?blems in" li!ssue . in the ,c ase at ,bar a'l \'l,e il as the ' section
"of Lear dealing with pre-patent trade , secret agreements. 43
"Rather,
than
'i
having a monopolisHc tendency, like the Illillo,is
~aw , imi<;i1ved in ' Sears" and CompcQ, ,the uphOlding ! of privati!
,
,
i
,. '
, agre~ents
,;
~.
."
I
,
for the ' "sharing of ' trade
secr,
e t's onni\1tua11y
'
. ,'i
,' ,
,
:,'acceptab1<; t~rms tends against the owner ',s hoarding bllEim. "~~ '"
The .:;;econd Cir~uit found no indicat:l,ort ' that the Supreme
45
. .
"
'. i
"
;'.
". '
' Court iri':·'Lear'
intended to "cast doub): ,on "' the ~orig~
I
.
"
.. ~a'ndirii ;;~:t"inciPle that an
inventQr ,w~o, '.'choos~sto ,
.,
exploit ·his invllntion by private , arrang~ents , is! emtir'e1y,',
I
',"
•
,35
, .'Id.
--
' : . '
I
.'
•
at 675. ,
,
:3~.376U.S. ' 225 , (1964) .
"
37 .'376
I
V'$ ~
.237 ' (1964).
38,395 U .S:
,
16~3
, -J
(1969) • .
''
.(
" 39 ;'Paintpn
&
' ,' 40.395 'u.S,
,653 '
. ','
i"
1
Company
v.
....
"
(1969) •
•
~2.376 , U.S. ,
j. ,
' I
I,
"
237 : (1964).
'.. .
' 4j'.442F .2d 216,'223 (2~dqir'. , 1971)'
,
'
44 ;Id . .
,
..
'
BOUl;ns ' : ~n~'~ '; -:44~;': ~ .. 2d; 216' (2n1 Cir. ,1971)".
"
.~
(10)
,
j
"free to do so, though in so doing he may thereby forfeit
his right to a patent."46
This holding upheld the common
law theory of trade secret by distinguishing the decisions
in Sears4~, Compco 48 ,and Lear~9.
In light of this decision
it seems that it inigh~/ be wise for a software owner to secure
a ,private ag~efl1rleht even though he may also anticipate
applying for a patent.
A, patent offers greater protection to a
comp~te r
program,
f,:ii:: a patent can protect : the principle underlying the process
a:~ wElll as the specific form. 50 Whether or not a patent may
be issued for a computer program has been the subject of , much
litagation.
Although the Supreme Court recently held that
a patent could not be issu ed for a process program, Mr.
, :
, Justice Douglass in the opinion stated:," It is said that the
: decision precludes'
compllter .
a patent
of ' any program servicing ' a
,
,
We do not Sd;;hold."51(Emphasis added)' .
"
'
46.442 F.2d 2l6,225(2nd Cir. 1971).
~7.~76 U.S. 225 (l96~).
48.376 U.S. 237 (1964).
49.395 U.S.6S3 (1969).
SO:Annot.
/ 6 A'!' ,R.Fed . iS6 , 160 (1971'):':'"
,
"
" 5f.~ottsch~lk ",'. ; Benson, iii
u.'S;:L.w,.::,40'l S ,'(Noir . 20,1972), ;
(11)
:In order to evaluat!" the present status of , cO)lIputl3r program '
. 'patents ' it is necessary to examine several" 'recer:t
paten~,
"
c'fl8e9 ':
I-
,The , ·statutory . basis" for a computer prog~am 'p'~~'rn:t ..
·,claim'
isfOlind
at', 35 U. s.'c. !hOl which provide~ .• ,':
: \';.,.,
,
',WhoeVHr invents or discovers any
new a nd -u s eful process, machine,
manufacture, or ' composi tio.n 'of "mat.·t er.,.
. or any new and useful improvement ' ,
.
thereof;
may obtain a patent
. tt.h~refol;
·,
.
.
.
.
subject to the conditions and .: ,1:-e'
quirements of ' this title.;~ 52
/The statute also ' st.a tes:
The term
"proc~ssn mear:~
proce$s,
art, or, nl8thod, ) and in,chides a , new
'use of :'a known 'prodess', machine,' . \
)11anufacture, composition of matter
or mate'ri'~1~"' 63 ' .
In ,. re Prater 54 ) a 1969 case h1lard :. by thE!
:cou~t' 'o f
. ',
..
CustoplS ' ahd ,Patent Appeals, dealt with
,
,
'
ari
I
.
.
applic!atioIlf~r
.
,a patent . for a method for processing ' or. analyzing c6n- '
.
.
,
,v entionally'
obtaine d epectographic data' "to produce a quantir
\
I
'
,
, tiitive s!,ectographic analysis of a qualitatiVely-known
,
,.
. mixture ' by which unknown component concentrations,
, may be,
~
"
,
determined with '. miilimwil error. , The ' 'l-pplii::~nts " werii seeking
.
.,
:
.
.
.
.
. '
'I
'
. . , '"
!
' ,'
.
'coverage of the operatitqn of a p!;operl\i' ip'r og,rammed, general,
;
,,' purpose digitai'. compute.r performing t~ei,,, . proc,,ss: , ' as well .
, "
/
,
I
' "
·s
52. 35 U.S.C. slOl . (1964) .
I, '
53.35 U.S.C; slOQ(b) , (1964). •
. ' ':
"'\ '\
,
54.
,
"
"is
.
F.2d .1393 t (C.c.P ; A.196il): :;
,
(12)
as that of an analog devise they had invented. 55 The proces's
claims of the applicants, even when read , in
ligh~
of the
specification, were found not to support the conclusion
.'that 'the claims were limited to a "machine process;' or ',
"l1\achine-implemented ' ~rocess".S6 The court held that
, the claims were broad enough to emcompa,s s pencil and paper
',:.nark;
i ngs which' a mathemati'c ian might m~ke in documenting"
, ,
ior ' recorciing his mental calculations. 5,( , Since
the :applicants
,
.
,
"
' were not seeking patent coverage of any purely
m~I;lt'
a 'l.. prOces's I
I
'
I
...'
"
."
,'
;
.,'
:6r a ny,' mental process , coupled ,only with :p enc±! ', 'lnd
pap,e,r ,markings, 'the claims as to this , proces~:i f'aiied, to'
s
58 ', . .
. ".\' ,
, ~e l;l t the quaHficaticins of 35 U.S : C. s1).2 IF,andl;'w,l;lre" not
"
,.
,
'
',i
, propet ,for <~ patent.'5,9
:
'
a
" Th~, ~e ', months later the same court' handed dOw')
, 'dEi,6 is,i on ' 'in a similar case, In re Bernhar,t . 69 ', ~hiS case
..
;
' d~~it ,with a patent claim for a method of . and , a~paratus f~r,
.,
','
"
"
"
'.
55.Id. at 1403.
:
56 .Id. at 1404., '
! '
57 . Id. , at 1405.
.
"
': ., "
: ,". ,~· .t ' I '
• ~
58. 3 5 tJ.S : C. !l1l2 (1964), "The sPecificati6ii: ,shall ·conclude
.wit h , on e or fu6recl'~ims particularly ppintihgo";'t' and ' distiinctly
, cla imi ng the Isubject matter , which the applida:ntregarqs a'il his ,
,'.
. ,.'
, "
,
.
d'
~.
•
'
.
•
•
".
1
'
."
, ~nventl.on ' .. ' .
',
.
.
,,
. '
'
"
', '.
•
.
!"
"!
•
, ', I
•,
\',.
'
59./l1SF:2d i~9j,i40S " (C.'C;p.A •. l'g6~), .' .
,
, .•~.',
' ,'
'. '.
. . '
'i,
-,
"
"
,
"
.
, ",
" t ,':
60;4l7
' F;2d
;, 13'9"~ ,, (C.C.P.A.1969);
,
.. ' ' I
'
"
, .
.'
.
(13)
•>
"'"t""
,
"• •
'
"
;
,
•
,a utomaticaliy .
making
a two-dimensional. portraial 'oJ; a three.,
.. "
'
dimens:i.onal ,opject from any desired ang'ili'i', and 'distaric~ and
,qn
any,' desired plane , of projection. ' Theapp;r.i,cants did ,
;
:n';i;
.
',
•. _.
I
,, "
..
'I
.
c:U.d~
as their i~;'ention merely . a s~t
, of , equations . eyen
.
.,..
.
t.
I
I
.
th()U;Ihthey conceded that they did not inv:ent the
computer
,
.' .
i
'or 'the ,plotting machine or any special ' methoa;"o,f ' feeding
.
"
.
".
'd ataO",,'point positions into the computer.
.
in~ti
~'
.
;" '1,
61
,In cq1"ing to its'
'd eci,sion' !the court stated:
"
, i
:'
We think it is clear that in ~na'cti:ng ,
section , lOI Congress meant to exclude
' principles or , laws of natu~eandmathe~ "
.
.
'!,
""
,' , "
matics " ,of which equations, fire an example,
" from even' ~2mporary monopolization ,
'
" by patent. '
"
'But 't he 'court found that to allow the clair"sin issue in this
'c ase ,woultl not prohibit all uses of
th~se
equations. r3 1n
il.oo~iil9 to the method ,claim, the court found : that i t !"lid
not cover mental steps and therefore was statutory, .and
,
had to be judged in light of th'e , prior ,!,t. ~;4, ' The , claim,
.
was
rej~cted
,
':
' .
.
.
,65 "
,~t 1396 ":'
-- ..
62 .Td . ', at 1399 .
'
6~,.Id ; ; ; i
,..
j
, :,
' .
65; Ic;l. '
" . ..
,
•
>
:!.,
,because' the inven't ion defineq by, the.cla'im was,;
obvious '.
61.Id'.
r . ,"
.
~ J
(14)
"
The court distinguished these two cases saying that the
.
applicants
in In re Prater 66 were claiming more than they
,
' rcg~rded as their invention, thus rendering:' the: claims
unpatentable under the second paragraph' of 35
U.'S:. C. ~1l267,
whereas . the claims in In re Bernhart 68 were rejected
because ', o1I)Y person skilled in the art would know how to
:take the computer output and use it to contro.l a drafting
.J~acl)ine. 69 The court did not rule in ei ther cas~ 'on the
I
.
. question of whether claims covering truly mental
sp~ps
could
'. be covered under 35' U~S.C . ~101.
, In 1971 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed
down a . deci'sion in a suit for patent
i~i.th
ini~ingement dealing
the part of · a patent pertaining to metho,,!-and apparatus
f '07: checJdng electronic analog computers;
fo TheY
held the
pate itt" to ,tie valid and ' infringed. 71 The m,ain, contention
was that' the patent claims were invalid for obviousness
.
s
72
,'"
as :definedr '..in
35 U.s.C. sl03.
The' level: of
ordinary
,skill
' ,
,
. /
.
'
:.,
•
1 ,-
•
-'
66';415 F.2d 1393 (c.c.P.!,. 1969) ', '
67.417 ,F.2d
, 1395,1401
(C.C.P.A.~ '. ,
68.Id.
' . . 70. Reevers Instrument Corp . v :,' ,BecJOnan dnhr\.im~nts, · I~;'. ,
:.',
44'4 F.2d 263 (9th Cir,. 1971).
.1 1.Id.
72;Id.
at
' - ,-
270. '
. (15) . '
in the ,pertinant art 'was used as the test of patentability.7~
This test distinguished this fact situatio~ i from ·the one
.lie~nhart 74 where the patent was disallowed
because
of
. . ,
.
'in
\
,
,()b)Tio,llsness.
The Ninth Circuit Court did not : deal with ,
suitab~'e
the problem of "mental steps" as being
for' patent
. The ,Court of Customs <:<nd Patent Appeal's late!;, approved
·,.,atents in , severai . cases 75 stat","g" in In
,
.a ' s ignificant
' I~' re
re'. Ben~on76
,
difference existed between In
that' ".
re',prateriZ';~~d '
bat.79 " ;The" c:i.a·ims ' ~n
Bernhart 7S and the case at
,t his case are directed solely to the",art
of·: ~ ata':'proce·ssiil.g
..
I
:
• .
,;.
,.
,its'elf wher eas in ,the above cases some "subsfdl'rary" ~,r
l
.
'. "
.J
add,iti~mal.art, was involv<;d. "SO
' Ih ' r .; ...~ensonSl dealt with · claims fo:i:
' : '
a
.
proce;ss .'
. '
I
,patent ' on a me thod of programming a geri~r~l ip~rpose d'igit;al "
"
, c~m;~te'r
tl? . ""onvert
,,73.Id. at
sign~ls f~orn
.,
. I
binary' code ,deCi!llal ,.form' "
:rZl...·
" . .. .. . ':,1,"
"
74, .'417 P '. 2·d139S (C.C.P.A. 1969j :.
",. ',"
.,
7. s.It; . ·re " B~.nson, ~41' P.2d ,6f!2 (C.C:P;A·.,:::i971) ·, , :In re WaldbalJ!ll,
,457 'P,·. 2d 997 (C.C .P. A. : 1972) , In re Mc;rlroy ,, 4~~ ! F '.2d 1397
'.'
: (C.C.,F. A. 1(71) :
". '
>• •
. .76,.441 F : 2f 16S2 , (C.C.P.A. · 1971), '
,
"
.
,
, i
. I .,
.
.
.
,
~\
77.4lS P ·. 2d '1393 ' (C.C;P.A .. 1971) ..
i
.
~,,'
•
>
\ .' . .. ~.
. 78.417 ·F.2d 139'5 (C ~ C.•P.A·. 1969).
, SO.Id .. " '
.
, Bl.Supra nqte 76-.;
.
(16) ,
' into pure binary form.
The cla.inls had been rejected as
subject matter not embraced by 35 U.S.C. ~101 in that
they s 'et 'forth mental processes and mathematical. steps
neither having :',' been previously construed as an art by
court'decisions. 82
The court asked the question:"Would
a reasonable interpretation of the claims include
coverage of the process implimented by the , hu;'an
'm'ind?,,83
,
' The answer they gave was "No.,,84 Th~ first claiID covered '
only a machine-implemented process, and the apparatus for
"c'.rrying it out had ' been disclosed. 85 The court found that
,the process corlld he carried out with no intervention by ,
a human being once the appropriate
,been assembled and programmed.
86
comp~ter
system had
As to ,the second
claim,
,
"
: the court held that the claim involved a pr~ces's having
l:no practical value other than enhancing the internal
operation of a computer and therefore could not be
"
87
"said ,n ot to be in the technological or useful arts.
"'This h ,o :tding is very" important since several ,:tater cases
.'
'1 '
.
.
, were based upon 'i t and the Supreme Cour~ ' revE,,:~ed; ,this
,88
decision on appeal.
82. ld .
,
I ,
83 ' ld. at 687. ,
84. :ld.
85. ld.
86. ld'.
87. ld. at 688.
88. Gottschalk v. Benson, d-ca .S.L.W. 4015 (U.S. Nov. 20, 1972).
(17 )
." -in
1971 and' 1972, the Court of
CUS1:om~ 'aild'
Patent
,
.
:
Appeals
h~ded downopinidns granting pa'tents ','i n , similar cases; ,
,
'
' In~e'
aerison.~O
Mc:i:lroy89 : concerned a claim' similar ' to
The
court i held tha,t whether a method is ,machine1implemented, ,
"
'
" ,
, ~i ",
was ",'pqt determinative "of whether or not it was ' statut,ory,. , "
I.'
"
.
•
,
.
.
'l'he method was found to be in the
t .
I
•
,
.
,~ , ,
"
'
.
technologi¢'i!J;: ; o~ ' usef~l
,
~tatutory ' under 3Su~s.~ '.:' !l1bl i9,~ , , g.ince , i
, the " pa~ent O,fficeaoru!d of Appeals lac,k ed' a ",prqp<:;; ' legal
b~sis for denij1{ oi ,the ' clUm, the 'IIecis:l.on' was reversM
"
.
I
"
.... _
.' - '
.
,I I
"
. '
~
~"
';
. . " '~
,,-
" "
~~ .
,I ,.
'
,',
'by ,the ;eourt. 93,
,
Again,,
)' the 'P,i H:ent. offic~Board'
otllp'peiils
i pad" r'ejected
,
. , . I:
.
,
.
~ :'
•
.
"
.
,'.
'
,:
"
,
.
,-
~ .' ' ~.'
'
I
"
:. ' " , "
'.
s'
.'
a, ,,'claim
for
a process patent on the basis:
'of,:'35"
Ii ,;8. C: slOl ',
. I
' .
" .' ,
"
' II:
'
,
'.
"
,
'~i;:t~~e Waldbaum?4 The claim ,concerned,' a!?,rocess, consisting
", '\'
. '. '1
.
"
,
'
. '
.
.
•
'. ) '
' "
.
, ',
J .' ,~: \ ,,: "
i "
,
"
i
.
~'f ' a ' meth04
for controLling operation'-;of ac;ia£ii, pr'b t:essor.' t6, '
"/," ,
, ,
;"
,
.'
' , ,'
' ,'
.
J~:,:' :
:
. ~' ~
~~t~~~riei ~he 'n~erOf l' s in a data,' \i?r4,. ,'",:T?e ~~\i;f~ , st~ted.'
"( .
,
90.441 , •• 2~ ~82 (c.c:,.A :: i971).
,
' p" .
"".. .I .,
,
,
.! • ~
51
: ~~!. Supra ~~~e ,89 i at 13 I~'
92 }]:d,: '
. r,, -
~3 ~ Id. ,
9~ i4S{F .:2d '997 '(C.C.P .A. ' i97~J .~ ,
,;
.
I
,
". '.
'
,
~ : .
,
(18)
: With regard to the "mental steps"
rejection, whether appellant's process
is a "statutory" invention depends
" on whether it is within the "technological arts". The phrase "tech" nological arts", as we have used it,
is · synonymous with the phrase "useful arts" as it appears in AF,Hci~; I,
Section 8. of the Constitution •.. It
is clear . that appellant's process"
which is useful in the interna.l
operation of computer systems ,.
is within the . "useful arts. n 95'
The hold"ing.· in Gottschalk v. Benson96 ', although
denying the patent claim . to the method of convert.ing
. . , ~". ' . 9inary code to pure binary, can not)·. be"liaJ:d otq:.:.diaallow,
,
In denying 'the
,l, •
all patents for other computer programs.
:patent, claim, the court held that the sam!! principle
I
.
'.
, 'appH~ in Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Co .97.:'sj1Qiiild
•
.
,
~
,
,
I
"be ;,appli\!d 1;0 ,this p~ocess claim. That , princiJ;?le
is:
I.
,,
He who discovers a hitherto
Ilnknown phenomenon'.'of"cnatur'e c;has<>no ·,
: claim to a monopoiy of it which the
'law recognizes. If there is ~ be
'invention from such discovery l i t
~ust come from the application,' of'
, ~e law of nature to a new a useful ,
, end. 98
involved in the case ae "
bar
, was founa
to
.The ,process claim
..
,
:, .
•. !
. I
., .
9s ..id .... at 1003 •
--, '
.
'
.1 '
i'
.
(U.S. Nov. ,20r ~97;Z)'. '
.
\
' .
,
,.
".'97~333 :u.'S" ,i 21 (1947).
,'
: 98~Id. at 130'. ,
.
,', - -1
i
unknown uses of the binary coded decimal
to , pure~
b,i n,a ry ,c onversion '. 99 The court stated:
It is conceded that one may not
patent an idea. But in practical
effect that would be the result
if the formula for converting
binary code to pure binary were
patented in this case. The
mathematical formula involved
here has no SUbstantial prac- '
tical appl~cation except in connection
,with a digital computer, which
' "
mean,s that if the judgment below
is affirm~, patent would wholly
pre-empt the mathematical formula
and in practical affect would be a
patent on the algorithm itself. lOO
' The test used ,in this case for patent,abili ty ,of a '
;process ,'claim that does not include par~iR~lar 'machinE1s
:was transformation and reduction of an article "to a
'9-;l.fferent state or thing. ,,101 It is feasihle that ,thi's ' ,
'
"
" 1;~st when 'applied to another process claim ' might .. '
t
I
'
. ..
• ' I, '
'
:render the claim patentable.
'
. ~
The court "stated' ~n
', dictum
, thatit~as 'not their intention. ' ,to
;" ftee'ze
,
"
:
,
,,'
"
102 h ,,'
;,
process patents' to old technolog1es .
' ,T ey, · seE!!ll ,to '
~
,
,,'
I
.• {
!.
:9~ , 4l " 'tl.S,.L.W. · ' 40lS (lI.S. , Nov : 20" . 1"W2) '
I'
' ~OO ; Id ;:
~
,
,',
10l.Id. ,
:102. lei.' :
(20)
.J
,indicate that a process patent might be obtained for
./
~
ac~mputer' prog~'arn ,provided that the claim n:etthe
, p:r;~p er
tests and was not so broad as to create a 'monopoly
,on :,,-<I'latural ' mq,thematical' phenomenon. '
,
,
The answer to the 'problem of protection , fOI:>tl"\e
.
I;loftware owner seemingly has yet to be f6und ',. Mr.
.
..
, dusHce' DbUgl:",ss ,has' stated, that nIt ' ''Iayb~ that l?aten~ ':
• iaws' .should 'be extended ,to cover the ,.e I?rogra,rn~.··103 :
,Many ,tecti~9logical problems ,a re irivolv~d ' " , however', :
, With>Jthe'~extentiph' ,.,f,\ patent' P"£lteOm:OI" by "c:ongress.
't
..
..•.
•.
.
, !lJnicu s ' briefs ' by sixteen inte rested pait.ie's ¥e':e
'"
",
104 '
. "
; s ubmitted , in , Gottschalk ,v . Be nson , discU'l'sing,
,: som~' oif ,ithesetechIiological
problems.
..
..
In.
vie';"
.. of
, ,the '
, problems: raised by this case, the supr~e C6ul;:t ind+cated
,
thatnbon~idered action by the Congress ':is, n ee<Ied.nlOS.
~ , patent, ' how'lver,
is impractical 'f 'o r 'most
so~twar~
owners; , , BeforEl the 17 year te"", ', of the , pat~nt .'exp~res
the program 'will, ,probably be obsolete. ' ~rotection ,
,
'against plagiar:!,.sm
is needed that; will at the ' sarne
,
t il'"''
i~~rea~ed
a llow
p rograms .
efficiency in ' develobme, nt
, of , new
'
i
Care
cornrni t tees , "
, ful st':'dy :b y congressiohal
,
'
:.
•
•
,
)'lhich h ave the n e cessary broad
..
j
s"
.'
..
inv~'i'ti<Jat?ry,r~ s ource9
' seems to 'be ' the first step needed 'to be , fuken.\ towa~d
. '
.
,arr iving at a 'workable solution.
104. Id • .
10S.Id.
(21)