Skip to main content

The Legal Protection of Software in Japan—An Original Model?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Law, Development and Innovation

Abstract

Since the early postwar period, Japan began to stand out as a leading global economic player, which thought of technological advancement as the primary way to catch up with the other developed economies. In particular, the computer industry was one of the fields in which the country showed and still shows its enormous potential. Due to the rapid strengthening of the sector, Japan was amongst the first States to be concerned with the protection of software programs, an unavoidable complement to its efficient hardware industry. As for the internal market of software, the Japanese situation had several peculiarities—partly owing to its complex language—and its software industry reflected such elements. Legislative proposals which took into consideration those uniquely distinctive aspects were submitted to the Parliament. However, under the pressure of the European Countries and the United States, the Japanese legislator enacted a regulation similar to the ones adopted by its main commercial partners. Copyright was chosen as the primary way of protection, while the projects containing a patent-based or a sui generis system were (at least temporarily) put aside. This notwithstanding said outcome did not imply the complete abandonment of the idea of software patenting. On the contrary, as such practice became more and more widespread around the globe, Japan led the way and the authors try to investigate whether the Japanese judicial interpretations of the problem continue to show distinctive features.

Sections 14 may be attributed to G.F. Colombo, the remaining sections to M. Dragoni.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs (91/250/EEC).

  2. 2.

    See Directive 91/250/EEC Article 1.1.

  3. 3.

    See Directive 91/250/EEC Article 1.2.

  4. 4.

    See Directive 91/250/EEC Article 1.3.

  5. 5.

    See Article 27 TRIPs.

  6. 6.

    See in particular the cases Vicom (T 0208/84), IBM/CRI (T 115/85), IBM/Document abstracting and retrieving (T 22/85), SOHEI (T 0769/92), CPC/IBM I (T 1173/97), CPC/IBM II (T 935/97) etc.

  7. 7.

    See for instance Auction Method/HITACHI (T 258/03).

  8. 8.

    See G 03/08, p. 40, Paragraph 10.13: a claim in the area of computer programs can avoid exclusion under Articles 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC merely by explicitly mentioning the use of a computer or a computer-readable storage medium.

  9. 9.

    See Computer-related invention/VICOM (T 208/84) Document abstracting and retrieving/IBM case (T 22/85); Computer Program Product/IBM (T 1173/97), Auction Method/HITACHI (T 258/03), Clipboards formats I/Microsoft (T 0424/03); Loan System/KING (T 1284/04); Opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal G 03/08.

  10. 10.

    See EBA G 03/08.

  11. 11.

    O'Reilly vs. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62, 131 (1853) (Grier, J. dissenting).

  12. 12.

    The evolution of the U.S. case law on software patenting may be read through some selected cases: Gottschalk vs. Benson; Parker vs. Flook; Diamond v. Diehr; Diamond v. Bradley, Arrythmia Reseach Technology Inc. vs. Carasonix Corp (958 F. 2d 1053, Fed Cir, 1992), In re Lowry; State Street Bank and Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, the AT&T Corp v Excel Communications, Inc. 172 F. 3d 1352, 1357 (1999); U.S. Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), Ex parte Bowman, 61 USPQ2d 1665, 1671 (Bd Pat. App. & Inter. 2001; Bilski vs. Kappos 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010); Mayo Collaborative Services vs Prometheus Laboratories 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012); CLS Services vs. Alice Corporation. (Fed. Cir. 2013); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Intl. (Supreme Court of the U.S., 2014).

  13. 13.

    See in particular In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) and Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010).

  14. 14.

    (Japanese Patent) Law n. 121 of 1959.

  15. 15.

    Precisely: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title”.

  16. 16.

    See JPO Guidelines for examination, Software Section, p. 15.

  17. 17.

    See JPO Guidelines, Software part, p. 11 and cfr. Hei 9 (Gyo Ke) 206 (decision 26 May 1999).

  18. 18.

    See the definition given in the specific software-related JPO guidelines for examination (page 2): (1) Invention of a process - When a software-related invention is expressed in a sequence of processes or operations connected in time series, namely procedure, the invention can be defined as an invention of a process (including an invention of a process of manufacturing a product) by specifying such a procedure.

    (2) Invention of a productWhen a software-related invention is expressed as a combination of multiple functions performed by the invention, the invention can be defined as an invention of a product by specifying such functions.

  19. 19.

    See JPO Guidelines for Examination, 2012, pp. 11 and ff. available at the addreess http://www.jpo.go.jp/tetuzuki_e/t_tokkyo_e/Guidelines/7_1.pdf. See also, ex multis, (Gyo-Ke) case No. 10698 of 2005 (decision of 26 September 2006), (Gyo-Ke) No. 10239 of 2007 (decision of 29 February 2008); (Gyo-Ke) case No. 10369 of 2007 (decision 24 June 2008); (Gyo-Ke) Case No. 10001 of 2008 (decision 26 August 2008); (Gyo-Ke) Case No. 10056 of 2007 (decision 31 October 2007).

References

  • Aranciba R (2003) Intellectual property protection for computer software—a comparative analysis of the United States and Japanese Intellectual Property Regimes, Saarbrücken

    Google Scholar 

  • Arezzo E (2012) Tutela brevettuale e autoriale dei programmi per elaboratore: profili e critica di una dicotomia normativa, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakels RB (2011) Are software patents something special? In: Arezzo E, Ghidini G (eds.) Biotechnology and software patent law—a comparative review of new developments, Celetenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakels RB, Bernt Hugenholtz P (2002) The patentability of computer programs. Discussion of European-level legislation in the field of patents for software, Study commissioned by the European Parliament

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer FL (2002) A pioneer’s talk. In: Hashagen U, Keil-Slawik R, Norberg A (eds.) History of computing: software issues, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessen J, Hunt RM (2007) An empirical look at software patents. J Econ Manag Strategy 16:157–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiang TJ (2011) The levels of abstraction problem in patent law. Nw U L Rev 106:1097–1152

    Google Scholar 

  • Chisum D (1986) Symposium: The future of software protection: the patentability of algorithms. Univ Pittsburgh Law Rev 47:1185

    Google Scholar 

  • Chisum D (2010–2011) Patenting intangible methods: revisiting Benson (1972) after Bilski (2010). Santa Clara Comput High Technol Law J 27:445, ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombo GF (2013) Japan as a victim of comparative law. Michigan State Int Law Rev 22(3):731–753

    Google Scholar 

  • Doi T (1973) Legal protection of computer programs. Pat Licensing 1:3–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbi E (1970) Proposal for legislation to protect computer programming, 17 Bull Cr Soc 4:280, ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbi E (1973) The prospect of future legislation and court action concerning the protection of programming. Jurimetrics J 13:234

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganea P (2005) Copyright law. In: Röhl W (ed) A history of law in Japan since 1868. Leiden, Brill, pp 500–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner CS (2010) The software patent question: a worldwide survey and analysis, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghidini G (1984) Programmi per computers fra brevetto e diritto d’autore. Giur Comm I:251

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghidini G (1987) Verso la protezione del “software”: il disegno di legge Fabbri, Malagodi, Carli, Loprieno e altri. Riv Dir Ind I:97, ss

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghidini G, Arezzo E (2005) Patent and copyright paradigms vis-à-vis derivative innovation: the case of computer programs. IIC 36(2):159–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Guglielmetti G (1994) Brevettabilità delle invenzioni concernenti software nella giurisprudenza della Commissione di ricorso dell’Ufficio europeo dei brevetti. Riv Dir Ind II:358, ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Guglielmetti G (1996) L’invenzione di software. Brevetto e diritto d’autore, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath C (2005) Intellectual property and antitrust. In: Röhl W (ed) A history of law in Japan since 1868. Leiden, Brill, pp 402–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckel P (1992) Debunking the software patent myths. Commun ACM 35(6):121–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilty RM, Geiger C (2011) Towards a new instrument of protection for software in the EU? Learning the lessons from harmonization failure of software patentability. In: Arezzo E, Ghidini G, (eds.) Biotechnology and software patent law—a comparative review of new developments, Celetenham, pp 153, ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilty RM, Geiger C (2005) Patenting software? A judicial and socio-economic analysis. IIC 6:615, ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes J (1988) The philosophy of intellectual property. 77 Geo L J 287:299–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Karjala DS (1984) Lessons from the computer software protection debate in Japan. Ariz St L J 53:78

    Google Scholar 

  • Karjala DS (1987) The limitations on the protection of program works under Japanese copyright law. 8 Mich YBI Legal Stud 25

    Google Scholar 

  • Kato H (2011) Japan’s history of intellectual property policy and patent act. In: Hansen B, Schüssler-Langeheine D (2011) Patent practice in Japan and Europe—Liber Amicorum for Guntram Rahn, The Netherlands, pp 67, ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawaguchi H (2006) The essentials of Japanese patent law, The Netherlands, pp 22, ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Kesan JP (2002) Carrots and sticks to create a better patent system, 146 Berkeley Law Journal 17:165, ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Kindermann M (1976) Special protection systems for computer programs—a comparative study. IIC 7(3):301

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirby P (1974) Industrial property protection for software. IIC 5(2):169, ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Kojima T (2004) Civil procedure and ADR in Japan. Chuo University Press, Tokyo, p 5

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolle GD (1991) Patentability of software-related inventions in Europe. IIC 5:660, ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Laub C (2006) Software patenting: legal standards in Europe and the US in view of strategic limitations of the IP system. J World Intellect Property 9(3):344–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leith P (2007) Software and patents in Europe, Cambridge. p 119, ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemley MA, Risch M, Sichelman T, Wagner RP (2011) Life after Bilski. Stan L Rev 63:1315

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi A (1984) Proteggibilità del software con particolare riguardo agli ordinamenti stranieri. Dir ind

    Google Scholar 

  • Machlup F, Penrose EET (1950) The patent controversy in the nineteenth century. J Econ Hist 10:1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney MS (1988) The history of computing in the history of technology. Ann Hist Comput 10:113–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Mashima R (1999) Examination of the interrelationship among the software industry structure, Keiretsu, and Japanese intellectual property protection for software, pp 25, ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuya Y (2011/2012) Legal protection of software, copyright, patent and open source—challenges for business in a mixed environment. MIPLC Master thesis, pp 25–27. http://www.miplc.de/research/. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2244216

  • Menell P (1994) The challenges of reforming intellectual property protection for computer software. Colum L Rev 94:2644

    Google Scholar 

  • Menell PS (2011) Forty years of wondering in the wilderness and no closer to the promised land: Bilski’s superficial textualism and the missed opportunity to return patent law to its technological mooring. Stan L Rev 63:1289

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman J (1997) The patentability of computer-related inventions in Europe. Eur Intellect Property Rev 19(12):701

    Google Scholar 

  • Oelschlegel H (1965) Sollen und koennen Rechenprogramme geschützt warden? In: GRUR, pp 465–468

    Google Scholar 

  • Ono S (1996) Comparative law and the civil code of Japan (1). Hitotsubashi J Law Polit 24(2):27–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Ono S (1997) Comparative law and the civil code of Japan (2). Hitotsubashi J Law Polit 25(2):29–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortolani A (2009) Il giri e la questione della mentalità giuridica giapponese. Riv Dir Civ 3:371–388 (in Italian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Örücü E (2008) What is a mixed legal system: exclusion or expansion? Electron J Comp Law 12(1):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Pessi Julho Antti Honkasalo, Computer-Implemented Inventions as Patentable Subject Matter, IIP Bulletin 2012, 2012, vol. 21

    Google Scholar 

  • Pila J (2005) Dispute over the meaning of “Invention” in Art. 52(2)—the patentability of computer-implemented inventions in Europe. IIC 36:36

    Google Scholar 

  • Russi L, Zeno-Zencovich V (1988) I Programmi per elaboratore. Tutela degli utenti e delle software houses, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson P (1984) CONTU revisited: the case against copyright protection for computer programs in machine-readable form. Duke L J 663:703–704

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson P (1985) Creating a new kind of intellectual property: applying the lessons of the chip law to computer programs. Minn L Rev 70:471

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson P (1990) Benson revisited: the case against patent protection for algorithms and other computer program-related inventions. Emory L J 39:1025

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson P, Davis R, Kapor MD, Reichman JH (1994) A manifesto concerning the legal protection of computer programs. Colum L Rev 94:2308

    Google Scholar 

  • Sena G (1983) Software: problemi di definizione e di protezione giuridica. Riv Dir Ind XXXII 4:479, ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Senhenn PA (1968) Wanted—a new law to protect computer program material. Comput Bull 12:112–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Sfekas JS (2007) Controlling business method patents: how the Japanese standard for patenting software could bring reasonable limitations to business method patents in the United States. Pac Rim Law Policy J Assoc

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan JA(1983) Patent protection of computer software—practical insights. Santa Clara Law Rev 4:989, ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinohara K (2005) Outline of the intellectual property court of Japan. AIPPI J 30:131–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern RH (1986) The bundle of rights suited to new technology. U Pitt L Rev 47:1229

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern RH (1993) A Sui Generis utility model law as an alternative legal model for protecting software U Balt Intell Prop L J 1:108

    Google Scholar 

  • Takaoka R (2011) Japan. In: Stobbs GA (ed.) Software patents worldwide, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Tedeschi N, Bracchi G (1986) Software e diritto d’autore. La tutela giuridica dei programmi per elaboratore, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JR (2011) Patent governance in the United States: lessons from Bilsky v. Kappos. In: Arezzo E, Ghidini G (eds.) Biotechnology and software patent law—a comparative review of new developments, Celetenham, pp 193, ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Tokunaga R (2011) The reform of Japanese judicial system to make an IP-based nation. In Hansen B, Schüssler-Langeheine D (eds.) Patent practice in Japan and Europe—Liber Amicorum for Guntram Rahn, The Netherlands, pp 56 ss

    Google Scholar 

  • Uemura S, Kato H (2011) Japan’s history of intellectual property policy and patent act. In: Hansen B, Schüssler-Langeheine D (eds.) Patent practice in Japan and Europe—Liber Amicorum for Guntram Rahn, The Netherlands, pp 67, ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasudeva VN (2012) Multi-licensing model (open and closed source) and software protection: revisiting the proposed Sui Generis software protection models. IIP Bull 21

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyand J, Haase H (2005) Patenting computer programs: new challanges. IIC 36:647–663

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaguchi T (2010) Software patent eligibility in Japan

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giorgio Fabio Colombo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Colombo, G.F., Dragoni, M. (2016). The Legal Protection of Software in Japan—An Original Model?. In: Bellantuono, G., Lara, F. (eds) Law, Development and Innovation. SxI - Springer for Innovation / SxI - Springer per l'Innovazione, vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13311-9_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13311-9_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-13310-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-13311-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics