CSEG3060 · Research Methodology in Computer Science
Copyright against patent for software · licensing models and open source · institutional IP policy and technology transfer offices · and the cases that decided it all
Software is textually a literary work and functionally an invention. No single IP regime is fully adequate to it.
Unit VI · Lecture 4 of 4 · 60 minutes · CO5 · B.Tech (CSE) Semester V
Dr. Mohsin Furkh Dar · School of Computer Science, UPES
→ / Space next · ← back · O overview · N speaker notes · F full screen
Learning outcomes · CO5
Explain the legal basis for copyright and patent protection of software under Indian and international law
Differentiate the subject matter, scope and limitations of copyright versus patent for software
Classify the major software licensing models, and the principal open-source licences
Analyse copyleft against permissive licensing, and the compatibility and patent-retaliation issues that follow
Describe institutional IP policy and the functions of a technology transfer office
Apply the landmark decisions to a practical software IP scenario
Foundations
Source code is written in formal languages that resemble, in expressive character, technical writing or music. That makes it a natural subject for copyright.
A program causes a machine to perform novel operations, solves technical problems, and may produce patentable technical effects. That brings it within patent law.
Expressive elements (source code, UI design) and functional elements (algorithms, architectures, behaviour) coexist in a single artefact. No single IP regime is fully adequate.
Incentives for innovation and R&D investment
Access to foundational computing knowledge for cumulative research
Disclosure of inventions against protection of trade secrets
Standardisation for interoperability against exclusion for proprietary control
Copyright · 1 of 2
Protected — source code, object code, the specific arrangement and selection of code, screen displays in some jurisdictions, and preparatory design material.
Not protected — the underlying algorithm, the idea, the function performed, the system architecture as an abstract concept, and methods of operation.
The idea–expression dichotomy traces to Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879).
The owner may reproduce the program in any material form · issue copies to the public · perform it in public · communicate it to the public · translate, adapt or arrange it — which covers porting, converting and extracting parts.
Fair dealing under Section 52 permits private and personal use including backup copies · non-commercial research, criticism or review · testing, debugging and ensuring interoperability — reverse engineering under specified conditions · use by educational institutions and libraries.
Term: life of the author plus 60 years (Section 22). For anonymous, pseudonymous or government works, 60 years from publication.
Copyright · 2 of 2
If a competitor reads your published paper, understands your algorithm, and writes their own implementation from scratch, copyright gives you nothing. They have copied the idea, which copyright does not protect, and not the expression, which it does.
That gap is the entire commercial case for a software patent — and it is why the next two slides matter.
Patents
Not covered: pure algorithms or abstract mathematical methods · business methods on a generic computer · computer programs per se with no claimed technical contribution.
Protects the functional and conceptual aspects copyright cannot · allows claims against independent re-implementations · a strong barrier to entry and a source of licensing revenue.
Cost and time — prosecution is expensive and slow · uncertain scope under s.3(k) and Alice · disclosure obligation, which may benefit competitors · validity challenges — software patents are frequently litigated and sometimes invalidated.
Comparison
| Dimension | Copyright | Patent |
|---|---|---|
| Legal basis in India | Copyright Act, 1957 — s.13(1)(a), s.2(ffc) | Patents Act, 1970 — s.3(k) carve-outs apply |
| Subject matter | Expression — code, UI, structure | Functional invention — process, technical effect |
| What is protected | The specific written form of the code | The idea, method and underlying technical contribution |
| Acquisition | Automatic on creation | Requires application and grant |
| Term | Life of author + 60 years | 20 years from filing |
| Cost | Low; registration optional | High — filing, prosecution, maintenance |
| Disclosure required | No | Full disclosure in the specification |
| Independent creation defence | Yes — innocent independent creation does not infringe | Limited — if it falls within the claims, independent creation still infringes |
| International harmonisation | Berne Convention; WCT | TRIPS Article 27, with national exclusions |
| Suitability for software | Strong, universally accepted | Conditional; subject to the technical-effect test |
Licensing · 1 of 3
Licensor retains all rights; limited permission to use; source not disclosed. Terms typically prohibit modification, redistribution and reverse engineering. Windows EULA, Adobe Photoshop.
Distributed at no cost, source not disclosed, modification and redistribution generally prohibited. Licensor retains copyright and full commercial rights.
Try before you buy — a licence fee is expected after a trial period. WinZip historically.
Volume, per-seat, per-CPU or subscription licences. Typically include SLAs and indemnification clauses.
Software accessed over the internet without local installation. The licence grants access rather than ownership, and the economics shift from licence fees to recurring subscription revenue. Salesforce, Microsoft 365, Google Workspace.
The same software under two licences: one open-source, one commercial. Use it freely under the open licence, or buy a commercial one to incorporate it into a proprietary product. MySQL under GPL and an Oracle commercial licence; Qt.
Designed for creative works. Sometimes adapted for documentation and ancillary content, but not recommended by the FSF for code itself.
Licensing · 2 of 3
Richard Stallman, Free Software Foundation, 1983. Defines software freedom in ethical terms, through four essential freedoms:
Freedom 0 — run the program for any purpose
Freedom 1 — study how it works and adapt it to your needs
Freedom 2 — redistribute copies, so you can help others
Freedom 3 — improve it and release improvements to the public
Founded 1998. Defines open source by ten operational criteria in the Open Source Definition, focusing on collaborative development and business-friendly licensing rather than on ethical freedom.
The shift in vocabulary was deliberate: “open source” was chosen partly because “free software” was being misread as meaning zero-cost.
Free software is a matter of user liberty. Open source is a matter of development methodology.
The licence lists overlap almost entirely — but the two movements disagree about why the licences matter, and that disagreement surfaces every time a project changes licence.
Licensing · 3 of 3
v2 (1991) and v3 (2007). Any derivative work distributed to others must also be GPL, and source must be disclosed for distributed copies. Linux kernel, GCC, WordPress.
Allows linking from proprietary code without forcing that code open. The GNU C Library and many others.
Closes the SaaS loophole: software accessed over a network — not distributed — still triggers source disclosure.
Use, modify and redistribute in proprietary software, provided the copyright notice is preserved. Very short and business-friendly.
2-clause and 3-clause variants. Similar to MIT; widely used in academic and embedded systems software.
Permissive with an explicit patent grant from contributors. Requires preservation of notices and a NOTICE file. Hadoop, Kafka, Spark.
File-level copyleft. Modifications to MPL files must stay MPL, but combining with proprietary code is permitted.
Copyleft (GPL, AGPL) preserves openness downstream, ensuring improvements return to the community. Critics argue it discourages commercial adoption. Permissive (MIT, BSD, Apache) encourages adoption but allows proprietary forking. Critics call that free-riding on community labour. Hybrids (LGPL, MPL) balance the two at library or file level.
Practice
Not all open-source licences are compatible. GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible in some combinations. Code under GPL cannot be relicensed under Apache 2.0 alone.
Incompatibility is a major source of legal and engineering complication in large projects — it constrains which dependencies you may adopt at all.
Apache 2.0 and GPLv3 contain patent retaliation clauses that terminate the licence if the licensee initiates patent litigation against contributors.
The mechanism is deliberate: it buys patent peace inside open communities by making litigation self-defeating.
Open-source licences do not grant trademark rights. Linux, Firefox and OpenOffice all rely on separate trademark policies to prevent misuse of names and logos.
You may fork the code freely and still be unable to call the result by its original name.
The SaaS delivery model reopened the question of what counts as “distribution” in the internet age. Running modified GPL software as a hosted service distributes nothing — so the disclosure obligation never triggers.
The AGPL was written precisely to close that gap.
Part 2 begins
Three reasons IPR matters inside an educational institute:
Public funding and accountability
Most academic research is publicly funded, and funders expect returns to society
Industry–academia partnership
Collaborative research requires clarity on IP before work begins, not after
The global knowledge economy
Countries compete on innovation indicators, and academic patenting is one of them
The instrument that resolves all three is a written institutional IP policy, operated by a technology transfer office. Without both, ownership of your project is decided retrospectively, by argument.
Institutions · 1 of 3
Which activities and persons are covered — faculty, research scholars, post-docs, students, visiting researchers, staff. Most policies apply to all persons using institutional resources.
Default: IP created using institutional resources belongs to the institution. Exceptions: scholarly works (textbooks, articles, lectures) usually stay the author’s; IP developed entirely outside duty hours and without institutional resources; IP governed by specific funding agreements.
Mandates that all potentially patentable inventions be disclosed to the TTO before any public disclosure — including conference presentations and preprint uploads.
Criteria: patentability · market potential and freedom to operate · alignment with institutional strategy · available budget.
A typical model: inventors 30–50% of net royalties · department or lab 10–20% · the remainder to a central fund supporting further research and TTO operations.
Requires disclosure of consulting arrangements, equity in start-ups, and external engagements that may conflict with institutional IP.
Consequences for non-disclosure or unauthorised commercialisation.
Institutions · 2 of 3
The Bayh-Dole Act, 1980 let universities retain title to inventions arising from federally funded research. Ownership default: the university retains.
It fundamentally changed the relationship between publicly funded research and industry, and created the modern TTO — the number worldwide grew rapidly after 1980.
Varies by country. Many national laws vest ownership in the inventor or the employer according to domestic employment law, rather than automatically in the institution.
The so-called “professor’s privilege” survives in some jurisdictions and has been abolished in others.
The institution retains, facilitated by Section 30(4) of the Patents Act, 1970.
The National IPR Policy 2016, notified by DPIIT, promotes a culture of innovation and IP awareness in academia, strengthens the ecosystem through TTOs, IP facilitators and incubators, and encourages IP-based start-ups through schemes such as ATAL and TIDE 2.0.
SINE — Society for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, IIT Bombay · IIT Madras Research Park and its IP Cell · IPTeL — Intellectual Property and Technology Licensing, IISc Bangalore · FITT — Foundation for Innovation and Technology Transfer, IIT Delhi · IIIT Hyderabad’s Tech Transfer Office, specialising in software and AI innovations.
In smaller institutions, TTO functions are usually consolidated within an incubation centre or research park rather than housed separately.
Institutions · 3 of 3
Receives invention disclosures from faculty, students and staff; logs them centrally.
Conducts prior-art searches; assesses novelty, non-obviousness and industrial applicability.
Decides whether to file, drafts the specification with inventors and attorneys, files at the IPO and/or under the PCT, and prosecutes through examination.
Identifies potential licensees; prepares non-confidential summaries for marketing.
Negotiates scope, exclusivity, geography, royalties, milestones and sub-licensing rights — the clauses of Lecture 2.
Facilitates spin-off formation by inventors; negotiates the equity and licence terms.
Manages revenue flow and ensures compliance with funding-agreement obligations.
Advises on institutional IP policy and on funding-agreement templates.
A director with both scientific and business judgement · patent attorneys or agents who draft and prosecute · licensing associates who evaluate and negotiate · business development staff who liaise with industry · technology analysts running market and prior-art searches · administration and finance for royalty accounting.
The courts · 1 of 3
| Case | Year | Jurisdiction | Doctrine at stake | CS relevance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diamond v. Chakrabarty | 1980 | USA | Patentable subject matter | Biotech, bioinformatics |
| Bilski v. Kappos | 2010 | USA | Abstract ideas | Business-method software |
| Mayo v. Prometheus | 2012 | USA | Laws of nature | Computational diagnostics |
| Myriad Genetics | 2013 | USA | Products of nature | Genomic algorithms |
| Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank | 2014 | USA | Abstract ideas | All software patents |
| Novartis v. Union of India | 2013 | India | Section 3(d) — evergreening | Drug informatics |
| Bayer v. Natco | 2012 | India | Compulsory licensing | Pharma technology transfer |
Mayo (2012) supplied the structure and Alice (2014) applied it to software: (1) are the claims directed to a patent-ineligible concept? (2) if so, do the additional elements transform the claim into a patent-eligible application?
In Alice: intermediated settlement was a fundamental economic practice, and generic computer implementation was insufficient to transform it.
Novartis applied Section 3(d) to refuse a patent for evergreening — a new form of a known substance without enhanced efficacy.
Bayer v. Natco (2012) was India’s first compulsory licence, granted under Section 84 for the cancer drug Nexavar.
The courts · 2 of 3
Facts: Motorola held patents declared essential to the H.264 video codec and the 802.11 Wi-Fi standard — both implemented in Microsoft’s Xbox and Windows products. Microsoft sought a declaratory judgment on the FRAND obligations Motorola owed as an SEP holder.
Issue: what terms constitute a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory royalty for standard-essential patents?
Held (Judge Robart): a reasonable SEP royalty must be calculated by reference to the value of the patented technology’s contribution to the standard — not the overall value of the standard-compliant product. The court applied the Georgia-Pacific factors.
Significance: anchored the SSPPU approach to FRAND royalty calculation — the concept you met in Lecture 2 — and showed the commercial stakes of contributing to a standards body.
Ericsson sued over SEPs essential to 5G, Wi-Fi and H.264, disputing the appropriate FRAND rate and whether Lenovo was entitled to a licence.
Significance: FRAND remains a contested frontier in the 5G era, and global disputes increasingly require coordinated resolution across jurisdictions.
The implied licence doctrine, and the enforceability of assignments executed before filing — the case you met in Lecture 1.
The courts · 3 of 3
Facts: Lotus sued over Borland’s copying of the Lotus 1-2-3 menu command hierarchy in Quattro Pro. Borland argued the hierarchy was a method of operation, excluded under 17 U.S.C. §102(b).
Held: the First Circuit held the menu structure not copyrightable. The Supreme Court affirmed by an equally divided court — leaving the issue unresolved as binding precedent.
Functional interface elements sit at the boundary of copyright.
Facts: Apple alleged the Windows GUI — overlapping windows, trash icons — infringed its copyrights. Microsoft prevailed on summary judgment; the case settled.
Significance: confirmed that GUI elements necessary to functional operation are not copyrightable, and set the stage for look-and-feel litigation through the late 1990s.
Facts: Oracle sued over Google’s copying of the structure, sequence and organisation of the Java APIs in Android — roughly 11,500 lines of declaring code.
Held: the Supreme Court found Google’s use was fair use.
The decisive modern authority on APIs and interoperability.
Applied
Before publication or open-source release, conduct an invention disclosure assessment. Even an academic paper establishes prior art that prevents later patenting — including your own.
The institutional policy on slide 13 requires it; the arithmetic of absolute novelty from Unit V explains why.
Software claims should:
1 · Copyright
You already have it, automatically, on the code you wrote.
2 · Disclose
To the TTO, before any paper, poster, demo or public commit.
3 · Choose a licence
Copyleft to keep derivatives open; permissive to maximise adoption.
4 · Consider a patent
Only if there is a demonstrable technical effect and commercial value.
Consolidation · end of Unit VI
L1 what a patent covers and how it moves. L2 how it is licensed and commercialised. L3 where the information lives and who runs the system. L4 how all of it applies to software, to your institution, and in court.
For your group project: name the licence you will release under and justify it; state whether any part is patentable and why; and identify the single disclosure that would destroy that possibility.
End of Unit VI — and of the course content. Next: revision and End-Semester examination orientation across all six units.