臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

　　電腦程式的保護方式一直是個爭議的熱門話題，其通常被認為具二元性，能夠同時受到著作權法與專利權法保護。這些爭議除了早期電腦程式是否受到著作權法保護外，著作權法保護範圍是否應及於程式之動作？程式之何元素或其介面是否應受到保護？對非文字侵權應使用何分析方法？什麼樣的重製行為是為合理使用？軟體專利的重要議題包括可專利與不可專利標的間的界線為何？其所必要的揭露程度為何？是否應採取與其他技術領域相同的非顯而易見性？以及先進國家對於對於這些問題處理的差異？
　　本文研究上述議題在美國、歐盟、德國和英國等之案例發展，且對我國對電腦程式保護現狀做出介紹，比較目前著作權法與專利法所提供之保護範圍，最後對我國兩大法制下電腦程式保護做出建議與展望。

The protection of computer program is always a hot debat topic. Computer program is commonly known for its dual nature, which is that it could be protected by both copyright and patent laws. Except for whether computer program is a copyrightable subject matter, the dabates also include questions about should copyright protect program’s behavior, which elements of a program or its interface is protected, what analytical test should be applied to examine alleged non-literal copyright infringement, and what type of copying should be permitted as a fair use. The issues in patent area are where the boundary between patentable and non-patentable subject matter should lie, what kind of and how much patent disclosure is necessary, whether the non-obviousness should follow the same principles as in all other technical area, or different ones, and what major differences to these issues between the advanced countries are?
This thesis reviewed case law development related above issues in United States of America, the European Union, Germany, and the United Kingdom. The current status about the protection of computer program under copyright and patent laws in Taiwan was also comparatively examined. At end of this thesis, the prospect and suggestion will be provided for computer program protection under patent and copyright laws.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究方法與範圍 1
第三節 論文架構 2
第二章 電腦程式的概念與其保護概況 4
第一節 電腦程式之概念 4
一、 電腦程式的定義與其相關觀念澄清 4
二、 電腦程式的種類 5
三、 電腦程式的演化過程 6
四、 電腦程式的構成單元 6
五、 電腦程式與硬體間的關係 7
第二節 電腦程式的特點 8
第三節 各國主要以著作權法保護 9
第四節 不排除另以專利權保護 12
第五節 歐洲聯盟內的區域統整 14
第六節 國際條約的相關規定 18
一、 巴黎公約 19
二、 伯恩公約 20
三、 TRIPS協定 22
四、 WIPO著作權條約 27
五、 小結 29
第三章 以著作權保護之探討 31
第一節 德國與美國電腦程式保護要件與其保護範圍之判斷 31
一、 德國 31
(一) 保護歷程 31
(二) 著作要件 34
1. 屬文學、科學、美術 34
2. 人類的創作 35
3. 精神內容 35
4. 個性（Individualität） 36
(三) 內容與形式理論 37
(四) 不保護標的 38
(五) 實務案例 39
二、 美國 42
(一) 立法沿革 42
(二) 保護要件 45
(三) 保護範圍之限制 48
1. 思想表達區分原則 48
2. 合併原則和必要場景原則 50
3. 合理使用 50
(四) 不保護標的 51
(五) 實務案例 51
1. 電腦程式的純文字保護 51
2. 電腦程式的非文字保護 55
三、 分析與比較 62
(一) 對素材收集、選擇、和編排的保護方式 62
(二) 低的原創性標準 65
(三) 以德國的「個性」分析美國的「抽象─濾除─比較法」 66
第二節 介面的保護 69
一、 介面規格與反向工程 69
(一) 美國 71
1. 介面的保護 71
2. 反向工程 78
(二) 歐盟 80
二、 使用者介面的保護 82
(一) 使用者介面整體的保護 83
1. 過濾或剖切法 84
2. 屬於操作方法 85
(二) 使用者介面的安排和順序 85
(三) 使用者介面的特定圖像或畫面 86
第四章 以專利制度保護之探討 88
第一節 專利申請與揭露義務 88
第二節 電腦程式相關發明之保護要件 90
一、 美國 90
(一) 專利申請範圍的可專利要件 90
(二) 程式相關發明的專利保護的歷史演進 94
1. 心智步驟原則 95
2. 數學演算法：新穎點和先占測試法 96
3. 物理轉換測試法 98
4. 印刷品原則 98
5. 實用、具體和有形的結果 100
6. 必須屬於技術工藝 103
7. 其他 105
(三) 「機器或轉換測試法」是專利適格的重要線索 105
(四) 程式相關發明的非顯而易見性 108
二、 歐洲 113
(一) 歐洲專利公約 113
(二) 發明要件 114
1. 技術貢獻法 117
2. 技術效果法／技術問題方案法 119
3. 任何硬體法 123
(三) 發明進步性要件 126
(四) 實務現況與分析 130
(五) 擴大上訴委員會見解（G 3/08） 132
三、 德國 135
(一) 技術要件與其定性 135
(二) 「電腦程式本身」的意義 137
(三) 過去實務案例 138
(四) 可專利條件的放寬 141
(五) 目前實務發展 145
四、 英國 149
五、 小結 155
第五章 我國現行的保護狀況與建議 157
第一節 我國以著作權法與專利法分別保護之區別 157
一、 保護標的 157
(一) 著作權法的保護標的 157
(二) 專利權的保護標的 160
1. 方法和裝置 162
2. 電腦可讀媒體、電腦程式產品、和資料結構產品 164
3. 傳播信號 166
4. 應用程式介面或協定 169
5. 使用者介面 170
二、 權利的限制與例外 171
(一) 著作的合理使用 171
1. 為備份之目的而重製 171
2. 配合使用之必要修改與重製 171
3. 必要的除錯行為 172
4. 機器維護或修理 172
5. 耗盡理論／第一次銷售理論 173
(二) 專利權的限制與例外 174
三、 侵權判定方法 175
(一) 著作權侵害鑑定 175
(二) 專利權侵害鑑定 177
(三) 比較 179
四、 侵權損害賠償之規定 180
第二節 以著作權法與專利法保護之問題分析 182
第三節 對於我國的建議 184
一、 維持各智慧財產權間的界線 184
二、 建立適合我國的專利產業政策 186
三、 於著作權法訂立反向工程例外條款 188
第六章 結論 189
參考文獻 191

一、中文部分
(一)專書
許忠信，國際專利公約及發展趨勢，經濟部智慧財產局，臺北市，2009年。
許忠信，國際著作權公約及發展趨勢，經濟部智慧財產局，臺北市，2009年。
閆文軍，專利權的保護範圍 : 權利要求解釋和等同原則適用，法律出版，北京，2007年。
陳錦全，著作權案例彙編(10)-電腦程式著作篇，經濟部智慧局，台北市，2006年第2版。
智慧財產局，電腦軟體相關發明，專利審查基準彙編，1998年。
智慧財產局，電腦軟體相關發明，專利審查基準彙編，2008年。
智慧財產局，說明書及圖式，專利審查基準彙編， 2004年。
雷炳德（Manfred Rehbinder），張恩民譯，著作權法（Urheberrecht），法律出版社，北京，2005年。
蔡明誠，德國著作權法令暨判決之研究，內政部，臺北市，1996年。
蔡明誠續著、曾陳明汝，兩岸暨歐美專利法，新學林總經銷，臺北市，2009年。
蕭雄淋，著作權法論，五南，臺北市，2007年第4版。
賴文智、王文君，數位著作權法，翰蘆總經銷，臺北市，2007年。
謝銘洋，智慧財產權法，元照總經銷，臺北市，2008年。
謝銘洋，數位內容之著作權基本問題及侵權，經濟部智慧局，臺北市，2008年。
羅明通，著作權法論Ⅰ，台英商務法律，臺北市，2009年第7版。
羅明通，著作權法論Ⅱ，台英商務法律，臺北市，2009年第7版。
(二)期刊論文與報告
拉爾夫‧納克（Ralph Nack），歐洲計算機相關發明的專利性問題：法律和經濟方面的討論，張小號、與馬治國譯，西安交通大學學報（社會科學版）第26卷第5期，1–9頁，2006年9月。
章忠信，著作權侵害之鑑定，月旦法學雜誌第190期，47–60頁，2011年3月。
許忠信，著作之原創性與抄襲之證明（上），月旦法學雜誌第171期，169–182頁，2009年8月。
馮震宇，論著作權登記制度廢止之影響與因應，月旦法學第37期，1998年6月。
劉孔中，我國專利法制對電腦程式相關發明保護之研究，月旦法學第58期，139–154頁，2000年3月。
劉孔中，德國專利法制對電腦程式相關發明保護之研究，經社法制論叢第25期，393–425頁，2000年1月。
劉國讚，美國專利間接侵權實務對我國專利法修正導入間接侵權之啓示，政大智慧財產評論第7卷第2期，1–38頁，2009年。
劉國讚、周汝文，論電腦軟體關聯發明之可專利性──以歐洲專利局審查實務為中心，智慧財產權第112期，5–51頁，2008年4月。
劉國讚、周汝文、王萬榮，研習「歐洲電腦軟體相關發明專利審查基準與實務」，智慧財產局出國報告，2008年3月14日。
蔡明誠，論著作權之原創性與創作性之要件，台大法學論叢第26卷第1期，1996年。
羅明通，著作權法「原創性」概念之解析，智慧財產權第11期，35–45頁，1991年11月。
(三)學位論文
吉玉成，商業方法軟體專利之研究，國立政治大學碩士論文，2001年。
蘇仁濬，專利法揭露要求之研究，臺灣大學科際整合法律學研究所碩士學位論文，2011年。
二、西文部分
(一)專書
Abrams, Howard B., The Law of Copyright (Thomson 2010).
Australian Copyright Law Review Committee, Computer Software Protection, Report of the Copyright Law Review Committee (1995).
Band, Jonathan and Katoh, Masanobu, Interfaces on Trial 2 (MIT Press, 2011).
Bender, David, Computer Law: A Guide to Cyberlaw and Data Privacy Law (Matthew Bender Rev. ed., 2011).
Chisum, Donald S., Chisum on Patents (Matthew Bender 2012).
Closa, Daniel, Gardiner, Alex, Giemsa, Falk and Machek, Jörg, Patent Law for Computer Scientists : Steps to Protect Computer Implemented Inventions (Springer 2010).
Computer Science and Telecommunications Board National Research Council, Intellectual Property Issues in Software (National Academy Press 1991).
CONTU, Final Report of the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (July 31, 1978).
Copyright Office, Annual Report of the Register of Copyrights for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1964 (The library of Congress 1965).
Cornish, W. R. and Llewelyn, David, Intellectual Property : Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights (6th ed., Sweet ＆ Maxwell 2007).
Cornish, W. R. and Llewelyn, David, Intellectual Property : Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights (7th ed., Sweet ＆ Maxwell 2010).
Dreier, Thomas and Schulze, Gernot, Urheberrechtsgesetz : Urheberrechtswahrnehmungsgesetz, Kunsturhebergesetz : Kommentar (3. Auflage ed., Beck 2008).
European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal (6th ed., European Patent Office 2010).
Faber, Robert C., Faber on Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting (6th ed., Practising Law Institute 2009).
Ficsor, Mihály, The Law of Copyright and the Internet : the 1996 WIPO Treaties, Their Interpretation, and Implementation (Oxford University Press 2002).
Gervais, Daniel J., The TRIPS Agreement : Drafting History and Analysis (2nd ed., Sweet ＆ Maxwell 2003).
Goldstein, Paul, Goldstein on Copyright (2d ed., Aspen Law ＆ Business 2003).
Institute of Electrical Electronics Engineers, Booth, CJ and Kurpis, GP, The New IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms: (including Abstracts of all Current IEEE Standards) (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 1993).
Kilian, Wolfgang and Heussen, Benno, Computerrechts-Handbuch Informationstechnologie in der Rechts- und Wirtschaftspraxis (28. Ergänzungslieferung ed., Beck 2010).
Kutten, L. J., Computer Software: Protection, Liability, Law, Forms (Thomson 2011).
Lai, Stanley, The Copyright Protection of Computer Software in the United Kingdom (Hart 2000).
Leith, Philip, Software and Patents in Europe (Cambridge University Press 2007).
Lloyd, I.J., Information Technology Law (Oxford University Press 2004).
Loewenheim, Ulrich and Becker, Bernhard von, Handbuch des Urheberrechts (2. Aufl.. ed., Beck 2010).
Louwers, Ernst-Jan and Chow, Stephen Y., International Computer Law (LexisNexis Matthew Bender 2009).
Möhring, Philipp, Nicolini, Käte and Ahlberg, Hartwig, Urheberrechtsgesetz Kommentar (2. Aufl.. ed., Vahlen 2000).
McCrackin, Ann M., Durant, Stephen C. and Lundberg, Steven W., Electronic and Software Patents : Law and Practice (2d ed., Bureau of National Affairs 2005).
Nimmer, Melville B. and Nimmer, David, Nimmer on Copyright (Matthew Bender, Rev. ed., 2011).
Nimmer, Raymond T., Law of Computer Technology (Thomson 2012).
Nolff, Markus, TRIPS, PCT and Global Patent Procurement (Kluwer Law International 2001).
Noto, Aldo and Patent Resources Group, Software, Business Methods, and Bioinformatics Patents: Procuring ＆ Enforcing (Patent Resources Group 2008).
Patry, Bill, Patry on Copyright (Thomson 2012).
Ricketson, Sam, The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works : 1886-1986 (Centre for Commercial Law Studies Kluwer 1987).
Scott, Michael D., Scott on information technology law (3rd ed., Wolters Kluwer Law ＆ Business 2010).
Scott, Michael D., Scott on Information Technology Law (3rd ed., Aspen 2011).
Stobbs, Gregory A., Software Patents (2d ed., Aspen 2000).
Stobbs, Gregory A., Software Patents : 2008 Supplement (2nd ed. ed., Aspen Law ＆ Business 2008).
UNCTAD-ICTSD, Resource Book on TRIPS and Development (Cambridge University Press 2005).
United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment., Finding a Balance : Computer Software, Intellectual Property, and the Challenge of Technological Change (Congress of the U.S. For sale by the U.S. G.P.O., Supt. of Docs. 1992).
Wandtke, Artur-Axel and Bulliner, Winfried, Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (3., neu bearb. Aufl.. ed., Beck 2009).
World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use (WIPO 2004).
Bently, Lionel, Computer Programs Directive, in Concise European Copyright Law (T. Dreier and P. B. Hugenholtz eds., Kluwer Law International 2006).
Schohe, Stefan, Appelt, Christian and Goddar, Heinz, Patenting Software-Related Inventions in Europe, in Patent Law and Theory : a Handbook of Contemporary Research (T. Takenaka ed., Edgard Elgar 2008).
(二)期刊論文與報告
Aplin, Tanya, Patenting Computer Programs: A Glimmer of Convergence, 30 (9) E.I.R.P. 379 (2008).
Archontopoulos, Eugenio, Spot the Differences: A Computer-Implemented Invention or a Software Patent?, 6th Annual Conference of the EPIP Association: Fine-Tunning IPR Debates (2011).
Bainbridge, David, Court of Appeal Parts Company with the EPO on Software Patents, 23 (2) Computer Law ＆ Security Report 199 (2007).
Ballardini, Rosa Maria, Software Patents in Europe: The Technical Requirement Dilemma, 3 (9) Journal of Intellectual Property Law ＆ Practice 563 (2008).
Bereford, Keith, European Patents for Software, E-commerce and Business Model Inventions, 23 World Patent Information 253 (2001).
Betten, Jürgen, Patent Protection for Computer Programs in Germany and by the EPO, 9 (1) E.I.P.R. 10 (1987).
Bloebaum, Scott, From Telegraphs to Content Protection: The Evolution of Signals as Patentable Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 9 N.C. J.L. ＆ Tech. 243 (2008).
Burk, Dan L. and Lemley, Mark A., Is Patent Law Technology-Specific? , 17 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1155 (2002).
Cai, Jingming, Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison, Should the Test Be Literally Copied in a Computer Program Literal Copying Case?, 16 Temp. Envtl. L. ＆ Tech. J. 287 (1998).
Cantzler, Christopher S., State Street: Leading the Way to Consistency for Patentability of Computer Software, 71 U. Colo. L. Rev. 423 (2000).
Chisum, Donald S., Weeds and Seeds in the Supreme Court's Business Method Patents Decision: New Directions for Regulating Patent Scope, 15 Lewis ＆ Clark L. Rev. 11 (2011).
Choudhary, Vaibhav, The Patentability of Software under Intellectual Property Rights: An Analysis of US, European and Indian Intellectual Property Rights, 33 (7) E.I.R.P. 435 (2011).
Cockbain, Julian and Sterckx, Sigrid, A Sun-Tanned or 3D Smurf? Patentability of Computer Programs in Europe, 6 (4) Journal of Intellectual Property Law ＆ Practice 254 (2011).
Cole, Paul, Patentability of Computer Software As Such, Patently-O Patent L.J. 1 (2008), http://www.patentlyo.com/lawjournal.
Commission of the European Communities, Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee on the Implementation and Effects of Directive 91/250/Eec on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs, (2000).
Cook, William and Lees, Geoff, Test Clarified for UK Software and Business Method Patents: but What about the. EPO?, 29 (3) E.I.P.R. 115 (2007).
Cotter, Thomas F., A Burkean Perspective on Patent Eligibility, 11 A burkean Perspective on Patent Eligibility 365 (2010).
Crowne-Mohammed, Emir Aly, A Review of the 'As Such' Exclusions to Patentable Subject Matter in the United Kingdom: Lessons for Canadian and American Courts, 20 Alb. L.J. Sci. ＆ Tech. 457 (2010).
Deene, Joris, Originality in Software Law: Belgian Doctrine and Jurisprudence Remain Divided, 2 (10) Journal of Intellectual Property Law ＆ Practice 692 (2007).
Derclaye, Estelle, Software Copyright Protection: Can Europe Learn from American Case Law? Part 1, 22 (1) E.I.R.P. 7 (2000).
Derclaye, Estelle, Software Copyright Protection: Can Europe Learn from American Case Law? Part 2, 22 (2) E.I.R.P. 56–68 (2000).
Dreier, Thomas, The Council Directive of 14 May 1991 on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs, 13 (9) E.I.R.P. 319 (1991).
Durell, Karen Lynne, Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Software: How Much and What Form is Effective?, 8 (3) Int'l J.L. ＆ Info. Tech. 231 (2000).
Effross, Walter A., Assaying Computer Associates v. Altai: How Will the Golden Nugget Test Pan Out?, 19 Rutgers Computer ＆ Tech. L.J. 1 (1993).
Einhorn, David A., Copyright and Patent Protection for Computer Software: Are They Mutually Exclusive?, 30 IDEA 265 (1990).
Elengold, Scott, An Inquiry into Computer System Patents: Breaking Down the Software Engineer, 61 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 349 (2005).
England, Paul, Computer-Related Inventions: From CFPH to Macrossan, 2 (5) Journal of Intellectual Property Law ＆ Practice (2007).
Englund, Steve R., Idea, Process, or Protected Expression?: Determining the Scope of Copyright Protection of the Structure of Computer Programs, 88 Mich. L. Rev. 866 (1990).
Ess, Philipp, Bundesgerichtshof Clarifies Software Patentability Prerequisites: First Step towards Legal Certainty in Europe?, 5 (12) Journal of Intellectual Property Law ＆ Practice 827 (2010).
Feros, Anna, A Comprehensive Analysis of the Approach to Patentable Subject Matter in the UK and EPO, 5 (8) Journal of Intellectual Property Law ＆ Practice 577 (2010).
Gable, Lisa M., The Feasibility of the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison Test for Computer Software Copyrightability (and Analysis of Bateman v. Mnemonics), 14 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 447 (1998).
Gervais, Daniel J., Feist Goes Global: a Comparative Analysis of the Notion of Originality in Copyright Law, 49 J. Copyright Soc'y U.S.A. 949 (2002).
Ginsburg, Jane C., Four Reasons and a Paradox: The Manifest Superiority of Copyright Over Sui Generis Protection of Computer Software, 94 Colum. L. Rev. 2559 (1994).
Goldstein, Paul, Comments on a Manifesto Concerning the Legal Protection of Computer Programs, 94 Colum. L. Rev. 2573 (1994).
Gonza´lez, Andre´s Guadamuz, The Software Patent Debate, 1 (3) Journal of Intellectual Property Law ＆ Practice 196 (2006).
Gorman, Robert A., Comments on a Manifesto Governing the Legal Protection of Computer Programs, 5 Alb. L.J. Sci. 278 (1996).
Hellfeld, Axel Von, Protection of Inventions Comprising Computer Programs by the European and German Patent Offices─A Confrontation, 27 (3) IDEA 163 (1986–1987).
Higgins, Willis E., Technological Poetry: The Interface Between Copyright and Patents for Software, 12 Hastings Comm. ＆ Ent. L.J. 67 (1989).
Hilty, Reto M. and Geiger, Christophe, Patenting Software: A Judicial and Socio-Economic Analysis, 2005 IIC: Int'l Rev. Intell. Prop. ＆ Competition L. 615 (2005).
Hoeren, Thomas, The European Union Commission and Recent Treads in European Information law, 29 Rutgers Computer ＆ Tech. L.J. 1 (2003).
Jones, Richard H., The Myth of Idea/Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law, 10 Pace L. Rev. 551 (1990).
Judge, Elizabeth F. and Gervais, Daniel, Of Silos and Constellations: Comparing Notions of Originality in Copyright Law, 27 Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 375 (2009).
Julian Velasco, The Copyrightability of Nonliteral Elememts of Computer Programs, 94 Colum. L. Rev. 242 (1994).
Karjala, Dennis S., A Coherent Theory for the Copyright Protection of Computer Software and Recent Judical Interpretation, 66 U. Cin. L. Rev. 53 (1997).
Karjala, Dennis S., Distinguishing Patent And Copyright Subject Matter, 35 Conn. L. Rev. 439 (2003).
Kasdan, John, Obviousness and New Technologies, 10 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media ＆ Ent. L.J. 159 (1999).
Kolle, Gert, The Patentable Invention in the European Patent Convention, 1974 IIC: Int'l Rev. Intell. Prop. ＆ Competition L. 140 (1974).
Kuester, Jeffrey R., Horstemeyer, Scott A. and Santos, Daniel J., A New Frontier in Patents: Patent Claims to Propagated Signals, 17 J. Marshall J. Computer ＆ Info. L. 75 (1998).
Kunin, Stephen G. and Lytle, Bradley D., Patent Eligibility of Signal Claims, 87 J. Pat. ＆ Trademark Off. Soc'y 991 (2005).
Kur, Annette, Protection of Graphical User Interfaces Under European Design Legislation, 2003 IIC: Int'l Rev. Intell. Prop. ＆ Competition L. 50 (2003).
Latman, Alan, Probative Similarity as Proof of Copying: Toward Dispelling Some Myths in Copyright Infringement, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 1187 (1990).
Lee, Justin, How KSR Broadens (Without Lowering) the Evidentiary Standard of Nonobviousness, 23 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 15 (2008).
Leith, Philip, Software Utility Models and SMEs, 2000 (2) JILT (2000).
Lemley, Mark A., Convergence in the Law of Software Copyright?, 10 High Tech. L.J. 1 (1995).
Lewinski, Silke von, The Role and Future of the Universal Copyright Convention, UNESCO e-Copyright Bulletin (Oct.–Dec. 2006), http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/32622/11718941731ucc_study_e.pdf/ucc_study_e.pdf.
Liesegang, Eva, Software Patents in Europe, 5 (2) Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 48 (1999).
Linck, Nancy J. and Buchanan, Karen A., Patent Protection For Computer-Related Inventions: The Past, the Present, and the Future, 18 Hastings Comm. ＆ Ent. L.J. 659 (1996).
Lloyd, Ian, Software Patents After Fujitsu. New Directions or (another) Missed Opportunity, 1997 (2) JILT (1997), http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/1997_2/lloyd/lloyd.doc.
Loewenheim, Ulrich, Legal Protection for Computer Programs in West Germany, 4 High Tech. L.Q. 187 (1989).
Lopez, Víctor Vázquez, International IP Protection of Software: History, Purpose and Challenges, WIPO/IP/CM/07/WWW[82573] (May 29, 2007), http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/wipo_ip_cm_07/wipo_ip_cm_07_www_82573.pdf.
Lowe, David A., A Square Peg in a Round Hole: the Proper Substantial Similarity Test for Nonliteral Aspects of Computer Programs, 68 Wash. L. Rev. 351 (1993).
Lundie-Smith, Robert, How Much Longer Can the Aerotel/Macrossan Test Survive?, 6 (1) Journal of Intellectual Property Law ＆ Practice 6 (2011).
Magen, Burt, Article of Manufacture Claims for Computer Related Inventions, 1058 PLI/Pat 763 (2011).
Marsnik, Susan J. and Thomas, Robert E., Drawing a Line in the Patent Subject-Matter Sands: Does Europe Provide a Solution to the Business Method and Software Patent Problem?, 34 B.C. Int'l ＆ Comp. L. Rev. 227 (2011).
Mauny, Christopher de, Court of Appeal Clarifies Patenting of Computer Programs, 31 (3) E.I.R.P. 147 (2009).
McEniery, Ben, Physicality And the Information Age: A Normative Perspective on The Patent Eligibility of Non-Physical Methods, 10 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 106 (2010).
McManis, Charles R., Taking TRIPS on the Information Superhighway: International Intellectual Property Protection and Emerging Computer Technology, 41 Vill. L. Rev. 207 (1996).
Melullis, Klaus-J., Some Problems of Patent Law from a German Viewpoint, OJEPO SE 2/2007 184 (2007).
Menell, Peter S., An Analysis of the Scope of Copyright Protection for Application Programs, 41 Stan. L. Rev. 1045 (1989).
Miller, Arthur R., Copyright Protection for Computer Programs, Databases, and Computer-Generated Works: Is Anything New Since CONTU?, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 977 (1993).
Mislow, Christopher M., Computer Microcode: Testing the Limits of Software Copyrightability, 65 B.U. L. Rev. 733 (1985).
Mojibi, Ali, An Empirical Study of the Effect of KSR v. Teleflex on the Federal Circuit's Patent Validity Jurisprudence, 20 Alb. L.J. Sci. ＆ Tech. 559 (2010).
Moor, James H., Three Myths of Computer Science, 29 (3) Br J Philos Sci 213 (1978).
Newman, Jon O., New lyrics for an old melody: the idea/expression dichotomy in the computer age, 17 Cardozo Arts ＆ Ent. L.J. 691 (1999).
Newman, Jonathan, The Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions in Europe, 19 (12) E.I.R.P. 701 (1997).
Nimmer, Raymond T. and Krauthaus, Patricia Ann, Software Copyright: Sliding Scales and Abstracted Expression, 32 Hous. L. Rev. 317 (1995).
Noishiki, Isao, The Scope of the Copyright Holder's Right to Adapt Computer Programs, 1993 IIC: Int'l Rev. Intell. Prop. ＆ Competition L. 200 (1993).
Office, European Patent, Synoptic Presentation of the Articles of the EPC 1973 and the Articles of the EPC 2000, including Explanatory Remarks and References to the Implementing Regulations to the EPC 2000 and the Transitional Provisions, OJEPO SE 4/2007 3 (2007).
Paley, Mark Aaron, A Model Software Petite Patent Act, 12 Santa Clara Computer ＆ High Tech. L.J. 301 (1996).
Pamela Samuelson, Tomas Vinje and William Cornish, Does copyright protection under the EU Software Directive extend to computer program behaviour, languages and interfaces? , 34 (3) E.I.P.R. 158 (2012).
Parasidis, Efthimios, A Sum Greater Than Its Parts?: Copyright Protection for Application Program Interfaces, 14 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 59 (2005).
Patent and Trademark Office, Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions, 61 Fed. Reg. 7478 (March 29, 1996).
Pila, Justine, Article 52(2) of the Convention on the Grant of European Patents: What Did the Framers Intend? A Study of the Travaux Preparatoires, 2005 IIC: Int'l Rev. Intell. Prop. ＆ Competition L. 755 (2005).
Pila, Justine, Dispute over the Meaning of Invention in Art. 52(2) EPC - The Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions in Europe, 2005 IIC: Int'l Rev. Intell. Prop. ＆ Competition L. 173 (2005).
Pila, Justine, Software Patents, Separation of Powers, and Failed Syllogisms: A Cornucopia from the Enlarged Board of Appeal of The European Patent Office, 70 (1) Cambridge Law Journal 203 (2011).
Raubenheimer, Andreas, Implementation of the EC Software Directive in Germany - Special Provisions for Protection of Computer Programs, 1996 IIC: Int'l Rev. Intell. Prop. ＆ Competition L. 609 (1996).
Reichman, Jerome H., Know-How Gap in the TRIPS Agreement: Why Software Fared Badly, and What Are the Solutions, 17 Hastings Comm. ＆ Ent. L.J. 763 (1995).
Rosen, Allen, Reconsidering the Idea/Expression Dichotomy, 26 University of British Columbia Law Review 263 (1992).
Rummler, Felix, Computer Program Inventions Before the German Courts - A Review, 2005 IIC: Int'l Rev. Intell. Prop. ＆ Competition L. 225 (2005).
Samuels, Edward, The Idea-Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law, 56 Tenn. L. Rev. 321 (1989).
Samuelson, Pamela, Benson Revisited: The Case Against Patent Protection for Algorithims and Other Computer Program-Related Inventions, 39 Emory L.J. 1025 (1990).
Samuelson, Pamela, Comparing U.S. and EC Copyright Protection for Computer Programs: Are They More Different than They Seem?, 13 J.L. ＆ Com. 279 (1994).
Samuelson, Pamela, Why Copyright Law Excludes Systems and Processes from the Scope of its Protection, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 1921 (2007).
Samuelson, Pamela, Are Patents on Interfaces Impeding Interoperability?, 93 Minn. L. Rev. 1943 (2009).
Samuelson, Pamela, The Uneasy Case for Software Copyright Revisited, 79 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1746 (2011).
Samuelson, Pamela, Davis, Randall, Kapor, Mitchell D. and Reichman, J.H., A Manifesto Concerning the Legal Protection of Computer Programs, 94 Colum. L. Rev. 2308 (1994).
Schricker, Gerhard, Farewell to the Level of Creativity, 1995 IIC: Int'l Rev. Intell. Prop. ＆ Competition L. 41 (1995).
Sherman, Brad, The Patentability of Computer-related Inventions in the United Kingdom and the European Patent Office, 13 (3) E.I.P.R. 85 (1991).
Sherman, Brad, Computer Programs As Excluded Patentable Subject Matter, WIPO SCP/15/3 ANNEX II (2010), http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/scp/en/scp_16/scp_16_ref_scp_15_3-annex2.pdf.
Shi, Qin, Patent System Meets New Sciences: Is The Law Responsive To Changing Technologies And Industries?, 61 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 317 (2005).
Soma, John T., Leyendecker, Kurt and Webb, Steven L., Software Patents: A U.S. and E.U. Comparision, 8 U. Balt. Intell. Prop. L.J. 1 (2000).
Stern, Richard, Micro Law, 5 (2) IEEE Micro 88 (1985), http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/MM.1985.304458.
Stern, Richard H., On Defining the Concept of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights in Algorithms and Other Abstract Computer-Related Ideas, 23 AIPLA Quarterly Journal 401 (1995).
Szabo, G.S.A., The Problem and Solution Approach to the Inventive Step, 8 (10) E.I.R.P. 293 (1986).
Tauchert, Wolfgang, Patent Protection for Computer Programs - Current Status and New Developments, 2000 IIC: Int'l Rev. Intell. Prop. ＆ Competition L. 812 (2000).
Thomas, John R., The Patenting of the Liberal Professions, 40 B.C. L. Rev. 1139 (1999).
Tsai, Thomas Q. T., Patenting Software in Taiwan: A Comparative Study of the Laws of Taiwan and the United Stated, 2000 IDEA 319 (2000).
UKIPO, Patents Act 1977: Examining for Patentability 123 (8) RPC 289 (2006).
UKIPO, Patent Office: Practice Note (2 November 2006), 124 (4) RPC 162 (2007), http://rpc.oxfordjournals.org/content/124/4/162.abstract.
UKIPO, UKIPO – Practice Note (7 February 2008), 125 (4) RPC 356 (2008), http://rpc.oxfordjournals.org/content/125/4/356.short.
Ulmer, Eugen and Kolle, Gert, Copyright Protection of Computer Programs, 1983 IIC: Int'l Rev. Intell. Prop. ＆ Competition L. 159 (1983).
USPTO, 1996 Examination Guideliness for Computer Related Inventions, 61 Fed. Reg. 7478 (1996).
USPTO, Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 142 (2005), available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/guidelines101_20051026.pdf.
Walker, Hon. John M., Jr.,, Litman, Jessica D., Braden, Susan G., Clapes, Anthony L., Gutman, Henry B., Dreyfuss, Rochelle Cooper and Hamilton, Marci A., Copyright Protection: Has Look ＆ Feel Crashed?, 11 Cardozo Arts ＆ Ent. L.J. 721 (1993).
Wiley, John Shepard, Jr., Copyright at the School of Patent, 58 U. Chi. L. Rev. 119 (1991).
Wilkins, Jon S., Protecting Computer Programs as Compilations Under Computer Associates v. Altai., 104 Yale L.J. 435 (1994).
Willoughby, Kelvin W., How Much Does Technology Really Matter in Patent Law? A Comparative Analysis of Doctrines of Appropriate Patentable Subject Matter in American and European Patent Law, 18 Federal Circuit Bar Journal 63 (2008).
Woodard, Larry N., The West German Smorgasbord Approach to Intellectual Property Protection of Computer Software, 15 J. Marshall J. Computer ＆ Info. L. 883 (1997).
World Intellectual Property Organization, Model Provisions on the Protection of Computer Software, January Copyright [WIPO's monthly bulletin] 6 (1978), available at http://www.valimaki.com/org/docs/wipo_model_law.pdf.
Zoracki, Allen Clark, When is an Algorithm Invented? The Need for a New Paradigm for Evaluating an Algorithm for Intellectual property Protectionhu, 15 Alb. L.J. Sci. ＆ Tech. 579 (2005).
Commission of the European Communities, Paper on the Review of the EC Legal Framework in the Field of Copyright and Related Rights (19 July, 2004).
Commission of the European Communities, Green Paper on copyright and the challenge of technology (1988) (4/18/2010), http://aei.pitt.edu/1209/01/copyright_and_tech_gp_COM_88_172.pdf.
(三)網路資源
Best, Bastian, BGH Webseitenanzeige: Der BGH erhöht die Hürde für Softwarepatente in Deutschland, http://bastianbest.com/software-patents-bgh-webseitenanzeige/ (15 July 2011).
Communication Department of the European Commission, Decision-Making in the European Union, http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/decision-making/index_en.htm (last visited 13 March 2012).
Council Directive of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs (91/250/EEC), OJ L 122/42 17/05/1991, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1991L0250:19931119:EN:PDF.
Council Directive of 22 May 2001 on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society (2001/29/EC), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:167:0010:0019:EN:PDF.
Council Directive of 23 April 2009 on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs (2009/24/EC), OJ L 111/16, 05/05/2009, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:111:0016:0022:EN:PDF.
Davies, Simon, G 3/08 EPO Case Law Update: EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal Releases Opinion on the Patentability of Programs for Computers, http://www.dyoung.com/article-epog308computerprograms (18 May 2010).
Engelfriet, Arnoud, The Patentability of business methods at the European Patent Office, http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/businessmethods/epc/ (1 October 2005).
Fenwick ＆ West LLP, International Legal Protection for Software, http://www.fenwick.com/docstore/publications/ip/software_protection_2004.pdf..
European Patent Office, Opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (G 3/08), http://www.epo.org/topics/issues/computer-implemented-inventions/referral.html (last updated 3 March 2011).
Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII), The TRIPs Treaty and Software Patents, http://eupat.ffii.org/stidi/trips/ (last updated 5 April 2010).
EPO, Patents for Software? European Law and Practice, http://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/computers/software.html.
Hayes, David L., A Comprehensive Current Analysis of Software Look and Feel Protection, http://www.fenwick.com/docstore/Publications/IP/Look_＆_Feel.pdf.
Metzler, Falk, Anti-Patent Campaigners of FFII Suggest that OHIM Should be in Charge of Coming EU Patent, http://www.visaepatentes.com/2011/02/anti-patent-campaigners-of-ffii-suggest.html (02 February 2011).
Metzler, Falk, Decision Xa ZB 20/08 of Federal Court of Justice (BGH) on Software-Implemented Invention Controversially Discussed, http://www.visaepatentes.com/2010/05/decision-of-federal-court-of-justice.html (30 May 2010).
Metzler, Volker, EPO Case Law on Patentability of Software Inventions From the 80ies Until Now, http://blog.ksnh.eu/en/2011/08/09/epo-case-law-patentability-of-software-inventions-from-80ies-until-now/#more-388 (9 August 2011).
Metzler, Volker, German Federal Court of Justice Confirms New German Approach To Software Patent Examination (BGH X ZR 121/09), http://blog.ksnh.eu/en/2011/07/23/bgh-confirms-new-approach-to-software-patents/ (23 July 2011).
Mullin, Joe, Google wins crucial API ruling, Oracle's case decimated, http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/google-wins-crucial-api-ruling-oracles-case-decimated/ (1 June, 2012).
Olswang, Software Patents in the UK: A Refresher, http://www.olswang.com//articles/2011/03/software-patents-in-the-uk-a-refresher/ (31 March 2011).
Paul Hartnack, Comptroller Gen. U.K. Patent Office, Chairman's Opening Remarks at Software Patents in Europe, UK Patent Office Conference (Mar. 23, 1998), available at http://web.archive.org/web/20010608115154/http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/softpat/1000.htm (last updated 06 Dec. 2000).
UKIPO, Patents Act 1977: Patentability of computer programs, http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-patent/p-law/p-pn/p-pn-computer.htm (8 Dec. 2008).
WIPO, Treaties Statistics, http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/statistics/StatsResults.jsp?treaty_id=15＆lang=en (last updated Aug. 13, 2010).
WIPO, Contracting Parties, http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en＆treaty_id=16 (last updated Aug. 26, 2010).