{"id":266,"date":"2020-04-23T10:29:48","date_gmt":"2020-04-23T10:29:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?p=266"},"modified":"2021-01-17T12:13:30","modified_gmt":"2021-01-17T12:13:30","slug":"interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/","title":{"rendered":"Interface between Intellectual Property and Information technology with special reference to \u2018Software\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><strong>Nishita Shrivastava | NUJS, Kolkata | 28th October 2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_47_1 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"ez-toc-toggle-icon-1\"><label for=\"item-6a2e0ba4af537\" aria-label=\"Table of Content\"><span style=\"display: flex;align-items: center;width: 35px;height: 30px;justify-content: center;direction:ltr;\"><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/label><input  type=\"checkbox\" id=\"item-6a2e0ba4af537\"><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#Introduction\" title=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#Justification_For_Intellectual_Property_Protection_To_Software\" title=\" Justification For Intellectual Property Protection To Software\"> Justification For Intellectual Property Protection To Software<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#Protection_Of_Software_Under_Copyright_Regime\" title=\"Protection Of Software Under Copyright Regime\">Protection Of Software Under Copyright Regime<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-6'><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-6'><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-6'><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-6'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#A_Idea_Expression_Dichotomy\" title=\"A. Idea Expression Dichotomy\">A. Idea Expression Dichotomy<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-6'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#B_Literal_And_Non-Literal_Element_Of_Computer_Program\" title=\"B. Literal And Non-Literal Element Of Computer Program\">B. Literal And Non-Literal Element Of Computer Program<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#Protection_Of_Software_Under_Patent_Regime\" title=\"Protection Of Software Under Patent Regime\">Protection Of Software Under Patent Regime<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#Protection_Of_Software_Under_Trade_Secret\" title=\"Protection Of Software Under Trade Secret\">Protection Of Software Under Trade Secret<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#The_Vital_Debate_Copyright_v_Patent_Protection_Of_Software\" title=\"The Vital Debate: Copyright v. Patent Protection Of Software\">The Vital Debate: Copyright v. Patent Protection Of Software<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#Looking_Around_The_Major_Jurisdiction_For_Protection_Of_Software\" title=\"Looking Around The Major Jurisdiction For Protection Of Software\">Looking Around The Major Jurisdiction For Protection Of Software<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-6'><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-6'><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-6'><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-6'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#United_States\" title=\"United States:\">United States:<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-6'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#European_Community\" title=\"European Community: \">European Community: <\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-6'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#India\" title=\"India: \">India: <\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-6'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#Japan\" title=\"Japan: \">Japan: <\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#Conclusion\" title=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span><strong>Introduction<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Information\ntechnology refers to \u201c<em>combination of\nsoftware and hardware products and services that people use to manage, access,\ncommunicate, and share information<\/em>.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn1\">[1]<\/a> <strong>\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>With the aim to regulate various\nfacets of information technology, the Indian Information Technology Act, 2000 defines\n\u2018information\u2019 to include<em> \u201cdata, message,\ntext, images, sound, voice, codes, computer program, software and data bases or\nmicro film or computer generated micro fiche.\u201d<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn2\">[2]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\nrevolution in information technology has made not only the information\naccessible but made life easier by innovation in information technology. As per\nthe Garner Report, the IT industry is expected to have growth rate of about\n8.3% in 2019.<a href=\"#_ftn3\">[3]<\/a>And\nsoftware is considered to be as fasted growing industry in information\ntechnology. Every new advancement and development in software industry is\nchanging the nature of software and thus, having huge impact on almost all\nsectors of industries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But\nthis tremendous growth in software industry has thrown new challenges in\nintellectual property regime as to the protection of hardware and software of\nthe computer. The intellectual property in computer comprises essentially in\nthree forms- patents for the hardware, circuit layout rights for the electronic\ncircuit and copyright or patent for computer program\/ software. \u00a0<strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Computer\nprogram are defined as \u201c<em>a set of\ninstructions expressed in words, codes, schemes or in any other form, including\na machine readable medium, capable of causing a computer to perform a\nparticular task or achieve a particular result\u201d.<a href=\"#_ftn4\"><strong>[4]<\/strong><\/a><\/em>The\ncomputer software essentially is a part of the computer system which is\nintangible form unlike hardwares. They are of two types-Operating software\nwhich performs basic function of the computer such as opening of a folder,\netc., while Application software uses operating software to perform more\nadvanced and specialized function. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\ncomputer programs are written in programming languages. The programming\nlanguage consists of two types of code- source code and object code. Source\ncode refers to the codes written by the programmers is the high level language\nwhich is converted by compiler \u00a0into low\nlevel language together with the object code to perform certain \u00a0function at hand. In other words, source code\nis converted by the compiler into machine understandable language called as\nobject code which is binary code to execute or perform certain task.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\nmost common and acceptable form of protection available to the computer\nprograms is copyright protection which considers it as \u2018literary work\u2019.\nHowever, the copyright protection of computer program often suffers from\nidea-expression dichotomy. The copyright law only protects the \u2018expression of idea\u2019\nand \u2018idea\u2019 in itself is not the subject matter of the law. Moreover, the\ncopyright law only protects the literal codes in the written form and\ntherefore, the software can be easily reverse engineered to get the desired\nresult just altering the few code. Therefore, scholars argues for stronger and\nfull protection of computer programs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The paper aims to deals with justification\nand jurisprudential development for protection of computer program. The paper\nthen examines the development and legal framework of protection of software\nunder different intellectual property regime namely trade secret, copyright and\npatent regime. Moving ahead, the paper attempts to highlight the idea\nexpression dichotomy and protection of literal and non-literal element of\ncomputer program. Later on will move on to the vital debate concerning\ncopyright or patent protection of computer program. And, then will lastly look\non the position of protection of computer programs in other major jurisdiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Justification_For_Intellectual_Property_Protection_To_Software\"><\/span><strong> Justification For Intellectual Property Protection To Software<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>With the revolution in semiconductor\nindustry, it became cheap and easy to make computers, which in turn enabled the\nadvancement in software industry. The traditional direct relationship between\nthe designer and customer got diluted and gave rise to the usage of computer program\nby millions of customer just by sitting at home. <a href=\"#_ftn5\">[5]<\/a>\nHowever, cost of creating the computer program remained high, though its\nreplication and distribution become stress-free. This led to the problem of\nunauthorized and illegal use of the computer program as the intellectual\nproperty of computer programmer is being taken away without giving him fruits\nof his labour.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In this background, the need to\nprovide intellectual property protection of computer program was realised.\nSince the creation of computer program involves intellectual labour and\ncreativity of the computer programmer, the scholars argues for extension of intellectual\nproperty protection to the computer program.\u00a0\nThe justification for legal protection of computer program can be traced\nfrom jurisprudential theories:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol><li>Natural Right Theory: John Locke, the main proponent of natural right theory\nargues that man should be the owner of his own property and thus, should be\nable to utilize fruits of his labour.<a href=\"#_ftn6\">[6]<\/a>\nThe creation of computer program involves efforts and labour of the programmer\nwho has invested his time and creative mind in writing the code and thus the\nnatural right theory calls for the protection of such works to restrict the\nother person to use without creator\u2019s permission.<a href=\"#_ftn7\">[7]<\/a>\n<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<ol><li>Utilitarianism Theory: The theory as propounded by Jeremy Bentham talks about\ncost-benefit analysis, or more precisely the principle of \u201c<em>greatest good for the greatest number<\/em>\u201d.<a href=\"#_ftn8\">[8]<\/a>\nThe theory argues for providing \u2018economic benefit\u2019 to the computer programmers\nwho has actually written the code by application of their creative intelligence\nbecause it acts to incentive and promote innovation in the society. If not, the\nmotivation behind the creative work and innovation would be lost. <\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<ol><li>Personality Theory: The theory recognizes the need for assertion of property\nrights for the self-development of the individual. The theory argues for the\nrecognition and protection of moral rights of the computer programmers as the\ncode they write are result of their own thoughts and experience.<a href=\"#_ftn9\">[9]<\/a>\nThe programmer has paternal or maternal affinity with the program or the code\nso written by him.<a href=\"#_ftn10\">[10]<\/a>\nTherefore, computer programs should be provided legal protection to enable the\ncoders to associate their codes with their personality and to offer proper\nrecognition to their moral rights.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Protection_Of_Software_Under_Copyright_Regime\"><\/span><strong>Protection Of Software Under Copyright Regime<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>The\nextension of copyright protection to software though sounds acceptable and\nundebatable today, it was not the case in the beginning of the information\ntechnology revolution. The initial U.S. Copyright Act, 1909 does not explicitly\nincluded software protection, however the Copyright Office received its first\ncopyright application for protection of computer program in 1961 filed in the\nform of tape, a print out and a magnet tape.<a href=\"#_ftn11\">[11]<\/a>\nThe copyright office registered these under Copyright law in the year 1964\nunder the &#8216;Rule of Doubt&#8217; principle\u2019.<a href=\"#_ftn12\">[12]<\/a>\nHowever, with the enactment of Copyright Act, 1976 the law recognized the\nprotection of computer program<a href=\"#_ftn13\">[13]<\/a>\nand later amended in the year 1980 to include definition for the same in line\nof National Commission of New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU)\nrecommendations.<a href=\"#_ftn14\">[14]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Under\nthe Copyright Act, 1956 of United Kingdom, the protection of computer program\nfound no place till 1984. However with the case of Alice Computer Inc. v.\nComputer Edge Pty Krd<a href=\"#_ftn15\">[15]<\/a> the\ncourt recognized the existence of copyright in object code of the computer program.<a href=\"#_ftn16\">[16]<\/a>\nThis finally paved the way for the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988.\nSimilarly, the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 was amended in the year 1994 to\ninclude computer program as \u2018literary work\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\ncopyright law provides computer programmers with essentially four types of\nrights:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Right to make copies<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The\ncopyright law provides exclusive right to the owner of the copyright to make\ncopies or to reproduce his\/her work in any form. In the context of computer program\nwhich can be given through license, the copyright law seeks the permission of\nthe owner before the exploitation or use by any other third party. The\ncopyright law prohibits any person other than owner of the computer program to\ncopy or reproduce his coding without due permission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Adaptation\nRights<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Adaptation\nrights in the context of computer program refers to the creation of another computer\nprogram based on the existing work of some other person by making some\nmodification to it.<a href=\"#_ftn17\">[17]<\/a>\nSource code thus attracts adaptation rights, however major difficulties are\nfaced in terms of object code because it is essentially the work of the\ncompiler rather than the programmer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Right to\ndistribute<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The\ncopyright law provides exclusive rights to the writer of the computer program\nto sell and distribute his work.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Rental Rights<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Rental\nrights include the renting of the program subject to receiving back any\neconomic or commercial benefit accruing out of the same. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\ncopyright law essentially provides protection during the lifetime of the author\nplus the extra period ranging from 60 years to 70 years after the death depending\nupon the jurisdiction and thus, same is applicable to the computer program as\nwell.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\ncopyright law however offers protection to the \u2018source code\u2019 only and fails to\nprotect the \u2018object code\u2019 because copyright concern itself with the protection\nof \u2018expression of idea\u2019. Moreover, the scope of protection of computer program\nunder copyright regime is also ambiguous especially with regards to non-literal\nelements of the computer. The extra longer period for the protection also does\nnot suits the dynamic software industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"A_Idea_Expression_Dichotomy\"><\/span><strong>A. Idea Expression Dichotomy<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>Under\nthe law of copyright, it provides protection to the &#8216;expression of ideas&#8217; and\ndoes not extend any protection to mere &#8216; abstract ideas&#8217;. The very rationale\nbehind the same is that it might happen that two person have the same idea, but\nthe manner of implementation or expression may vary. Therefore, it helps in\naccommodating several expression for the same idea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However,\nin practicality this distinction between idea and expression of ideas often\nfinds its boundaries blurred. This transformation from idea to expression often\nare so intrinsically linked that it becomes difficult to separate the two and\nthus, raises challenges as to the scope of the copyright law. The attempt to\nresolve idea-expression dichotomy was made by the United States Supreme Court\nin the case of Baker v. Selden (1879)<a href=\"#_ftn18\">[18]<\/a>\nwherein the court held that the copyright extends to provide protection to the\nmanner of expression of the idea and not on the idea per se because\nmanifestation of idea be achieved in multiple ways. The court went ahead to\npoint out that copyright protection to ideas would result in providing monopoly\nto the copyright holder which can hamper new ideas and creativity.<a href=\"#_ftn19\">[19]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However,\nthe distinction between idea and expression sometimes get blurred and the two\nare said to be merged, More, precisely there are certain works which can be\nexpressed in only one manner. The <em>doctrine\nof merger<\/em> thus says that in such case, the copyright protection cannot be\navailed because offering protection to such intrinsically linked or merged\nidea-express would result in granting monopoly to the copyholder and would be against\nthe greater public good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On\nthe other hand, the <em>doctrine of Scenes a\nFaire<\/em> is employed to the protection of copyright over essential elements of\nexpression of idea without which the idea cannot exist. The United States court\nin the case of <em>Thomas Walker v. Times\nLife Films Inc<\/em>.<a href=\"#_ftn20\">[20]<\/a>\nwhile examining the literary work of the plaintiff and screenplay work of the\ndefendant describing crime in South Bronx held that this would not constitute\nscene a faire because elements of thieves, prostitutes, car etc. are common\naffair and thus could not be granted protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Applying\nthe same in the case of copyright protection of computer program, the copyright\nholder of the computer programr have right to restrict others from copying the\nliteral code of his work but does not have any right to prohibit the\nutilization of the same idea by other person.<a href=\"#_ftn21\">[21]<\/a>\nThus allowing the other person to develop and create the same computer program\nby employing just different language or form or structure.<a href=\"#_ftn22\">[22]<\/a> In\nthe case of <em>Apple Computer Inc. v.\nFranklin Computer Corporation<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn23\">[23]<\/a>\nthe court upheld that the subject matter of the copyright protection in the\ncase of computer program includes only form and substance of the instructions\nand not the very idea itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"B_Literal_And_Non-Literal_Element_Of_Computer_Program\"><\/span><strong>B. Literal And Non-Literal Element Of Computer Program<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>The\ncopyright protection of computer program include only the written code i.e. the\nliteral elements. The issue thus has been raised with respect to the protection\nof non-literal element of the computer software such as structure or format\netc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\nvery first case which took into account the dilemma of literal and non-literal\nelement of subject matter was <em>Whelan\nAssociates, Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn24\">[24]<\/a>,\nInc. wherein the Whelan has developed a program for managing dental lab and the\nsame has been developed by Jaslow using different programming language and\nmachine. The question thus raised whether the copyright protection of software\nincludes only the literal elements or it includes the overall structure of the\nprogram as well. The court relying on <em>Baker\nv. Seldon<a href=\"#_ftn25\"><strong>[25]<\/strong><\/a><\/em>\napplied the idea-expression dichotomy to the non-literal elements of the program\nand emphasised on the end sought\/purpose to be achieved by the program. The\ncourt thus developed <em>\u2018look and feel\ndoctrine\u2019<\/em> and held that the structure of the program is part of the\nexpression of the idea and thus, subject to copyright. The court\u2019s rationale\nbehind protection of non-literal elements of software to incentive the programrs\nand provide due recognition to their efforts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Later,\nin the case of <em>Lotus Development Corp. V.\nPaperback Software Internationals<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn26\">[26]<\/a>\nwhereby the question with regards to copyrightability of the user interface was\nraised. The court applying the Whelan case afforded the protection to the user\ninterface and also formulated a three step test to resolve idea expression\ndichotomy. Firstly, the court should distinguish between idea and expression\nwithin the program. Secondly, determining whether the said expression of the\nidea falls within the category of essential elements of the expression of idea\nor is mere incidental to it. Thirdly, determining the substantial similarity\nbetween the two program in quality as well as quality. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In\nyet another case of <em>Broderbund Software\nInc. v. Unison World Inc.<a href=\"#_ftn27\"><strong>[27]<\/strong><\/a>\n<\/em>the question regarding the copyrightability of structure, appearance and\nsequence of the computer program was raised. The court came to the conclusion\nthat since there are alternative means and methods to design the alleged\ncomputer program, the defendant has infringed the copyright.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\njudgement of Whealan was heavily criticized as it relies on the metaphysical\ndistinction between idea and expression.<a href=\"#_ftn28\">[28]<\/a>\nThe critics argues that underlying computer program does not only include a\nsingle idea, but contains multiple ideas in the form of subroutines which\ninteract with each other.<a href=\"#_ftn29\">[29]<\/a>\nThus, Whealan fails to take into account the holistic nature of the computer program.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Finally\nto cure the challenges posed by the Whealan case, the court in the case of <em>Computer Associates International v. Altai\nInternational<a href=\"#_ftn30\"><strong>[30]<\/strong><\/a>\n<\/em>evolved <em>Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison<\/em>,\na three step test. The first step involves dividing the computer program into\ndifferent level of abstraction. At the lowest level of abstraction, a computer program\nis nothing but compilation of different sets of instruction consisting of\nmodules and at higher level of abstraction, it includes the vey function of\nthose modules.<a href=\"#_ftn31\">[31]<\/a>\nThe Second step involves determining whether each level of abstraction is an\nidea itself (which is dictated by element of efficiency, external factors and\npublic domain) or mere incidental to the idea.<a href=\"#_ftn32\">[32]<\/a>\nLastly, the third step involves comparison between the expressions left at each\nlevel of abstraction with the accused\u2019s software. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However,\nthe test fails in the cases where the idea and expressions are so intrinsically\nlinked or merged together that it is difficult to make distinction between the\ntwo as happened in the case of <em>Gates\nRubber Co. v. Bando Chemicals Industries Ltd. <\/em><a href=\"#_ftn33\">[33]<\/a>The doctrine of merger says that in\ninstances where there is only a single way to express an idea, the\nidea-expression merges and thus is not subject to copyright protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Protection_Of_Software_Under_Patent_Regime\"><\/span><strong>Protection Of Software Under Patent Regime<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>The\nlack of adequate protection offered to computer program by the copyright regime\nled to the demand for protection under the patent regime of intellectual\nproperty rights. The patent protection provides protection to the idea and\nexpression i.e. object and subject code in its entirety subject to fulfilment\nof &#8216;inventive step&#8217; criteria and the exclusive right over the program for the\nduration of 20 years. That\u2019s to say, for patentability of software it needs to\nbe new and original, useful and should novelty. The patent protection to\ncomputer programs allows patent holder to have competitive edge over the other\nin the market and also acts to incentivise the innovation in the industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Though\ncurrently, some jurisdiction offer protection to computer program under patent\nregime. However, it was not the case initially. For instance, the United States\nPatent Office initially took stand that computer program are not patentable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In\nthe case of <em>Gottschalk v. Benson<\/em> <a href=\"#_ftn34\">[34]<\/a>the\nUnited State Supreme Court rejected the claim for patent protection of\nmathematical algorithm. However, the court took U-turn in the case <em>parker v flook <\/em><a href=\"#_ftn35\">[35]<\/a>and\ngranted patent protection to the mathematical algorithm subject to it being\ninnovative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In\nyet another case of <em>Diamond v Diehr<\/em> <a href=\"#_ftn36\">[36]<\/a>the\nSupreme Court held that software or mathematical formulae though not patentable\nper se, but can be made subject matter of patents if attached with otherwise\npatentable object.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To\nprovide a clear guidelines in the wake of these three cases, the United States\u2019\nPatents and Trade Marks Office (USPTO) developed Freeman-Walter-Abele test to\ndetermine whether alleged computer software will be patentable subject matter\nor not.<a href=\"#_ftn37\">[37]<\/a>\nIn the case of <em>Arrhythmia Research\nTechnology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corporation<a href=\"#_ftn38\"><strong>[38]<\/strong><\/a><\/em>\nthe court summarized the aforesaid test and allowed the patentability of\ncomputer program used to detect heart activity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In\nthe case of <em>State Street Bank &#038; Trust\nCo. v. Signature Financial Group<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn39\">[39]<\/a>,\nInc. the court allowed business method patent in computer program if &#8216;it\nproduces in useful, concrete and tangible result.&#8217; Later in the case of <em>In re Bilski<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn40\">[40]<\/a>,\nthe court discarded the useful-concrete-tangible test. In <em>Bilski v. Kappos<\/em> <a href=\"#_ftn41\">[41]<\/a>he\nSupreme Court affirmed the previous case of <em>In\nre Bilski<\/em> and evolved &#8216;machine or transformation test&#8217;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Finally,\nthe U.S. Supreme Court in the case of <em>Alice\nCorp. v. CLS Bank International <\/em><a href=\"#_ftn42\">[42]<\/a>held\nthat &#8216;implementation of the abstract idea&#8217; through computer program would not\nbe patentable and thus, the patent protection software implementation of an\nescrow arrangement is not patentable. The decision led to U.S. patent office to\nrevoke patent of certain software who were mere implementation of abstract\nideas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Protection_Of_Software_Under_Trade_Secret\"><\/span><strong>Protection Of Software Under Trade Secret<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>With the rise and growth of the\nknowledge and information in today\u2019s era, there is a need for protection of\ntrade secrets and confidential information. Aside from protecting the software\nby way of patent, trademark, or by copyright, the law should also protect the\nsource code and object from being misused. Trade secrets provide economic\nbenefits to software companies in numerous ways considering the volatile and\ngrowing nature of the industry. The creation of the computer program requires\nhuge funds and resources, however the dissemination and replication of software\nare relatively easier. Moreover, the existing copyright protection to software\nis ineffective because it fails to protect the object code of the program, thus\nmaking computer program prey to the reverse engineering by the competitors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Moreover, such information which if made\npublic on the pretext of getting other protection like patents or copyrights\nwill lead to serious injuries to the company as mostly the trade secrets are\ninformation about business practices or even a formula.\u00a0 Companies thus prefer to keep trade secrets\nas they can easily maintain that secrecy which in return give them economic\nedge in the market. Thus, the need for the protection of computer program via\ntrade secret is often resorted. The trade secret protection of computer program\nenables the secret holder to have competitive advantage over other competitors.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The information is said to be Trade\nSecret if the information fulfils three essentials that are<a href=\"#_ftn43\">[43]<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A. the information must be secret,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>B. it has some commercial value, and <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>C. the holder must have taken some\nreasonable efforts to keep it a secret. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>These\ntrade secrets and confidential information can be protected under different\njurisdiction either by legislation, the Non- Disclosure Agreements, the\nNon-Competent and Confidentiality Clause. In recent years, trade secret law in\nthe US has largely become statutory. The Uniform Trade Secret Act (UTSA) has\nbeen adopted (sometimes with modifications) in most states.<a href=\"#_ftn44\">[44]<\/a>\nNonetheless, and despite the UTSA\u2019s widespread adoption, the restatement\ndefinition retains vitality and is often referred to by the courts during the\ncourse of their deliberations in applying the UTSA. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\nEconomic Espionage Act (EEA) of 1996 provides for trade secret protection at\nthe federal level. The EEA was enacted as a federal criminal statute. The EEA\ndoes not provide for a private civil right of action. Accordingly, a victim of\ntrade secret theft seeking redress must persuade the federal prosecutor in its\njudicial district that their particular case is worthy of prosecution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In\nIndia, software as a trade secret can be protected via Indian Contract Act,\n1972 in the form of Non-Disclosure Agreement or Non-compete clause and\nconfidentiality clause. Non-Disclosure Agreement is a legal document or\ncontract between at least two parties (mostly employer employee) that outlines\nconfidential material, knowledge, or information that the parties wish to share\nwith one another for certain purposes, but wish to restrict access to or by\nthird parties.<a href=\"#_ftn45\">[45]<\/a>\nNon-Compete clause or covenants are used in contracts under which an employee\nagrees not to pursue a similar profession, trade or business in competition\nagainst the employer.\u00a0 The Indian\nContract Act, 1972 provides a framework of rules and regulations regarding\nformation, performance, discharge and breach of contracts and deals with the\nlegality of such covenants.<a href=\"#_ftn46\">[46]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Though there is\nlack of proper legislation dealing exclusively for protection of trade secret\nor confidential information, India courts have resorted to principles of\nequity, justice and good conscious to uphold the legal validity of the\ncontractual obligation arising out of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\nconcept of shrink-wrap license is often thus extended under the trade mark\nregime for filling the gaps of the copyright and patent regime.<a href=\"#_ftn47\">[47]<\/a> The\ntrade secret protection provides blanket protection to all the elements of the\ncomputer program including the underlying idea and the expression. Unlike copyright\nand patent protection, the trade secret allows the holder of computer program\nto exploit his intellectual property for infinite duration as long as his\ncreation is not in the public domain. Moreover, for the trade secret protection\nof software no application or proving of technicalities or fees or involvement\nof government is required.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However,\nthe protection of software under trade secret regime is also problematic. Since\ntraditional trade secret law dealt with protecting formulae, process or business\nmethod from reaching the public domain, but this is not the case in software\nindustry. Under software industry, the owner of the software wants his creation\nto be widely distributed and used by the public at large in exchange of\neconomic incentive and restricting others from using the same.<a href=\"#_ftn48\">[48]<\/a> Since\nsoftware are granted by \u2018object code\u2019 licensing, the trade secret regime falls\nprey to the menace of reverse engineering by the end users. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Vital_Debate_Copyright_v_Patent_Protection_Of_Software\"><\/span><strong>The Vital Debate: Copyright v. Patent Protection Of Software<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Due\nto the very complex nature of the computer program, offering protection under\nintellectual property regime is often challenging. The computer program\nconsists of millions of codes and modules, thus protecting each and every codes\nand sub-modules becomes a herculean task. Moreover, the dynamic nature of\nsoftware industry is making the computer program more complex and advanced,\nthus merging the very distinction between idea-expression. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\ncopyright protection of the computer program though widely accepted in the\npresent time, suffers from idea-expression dichotomy and fails to provide\nprotection to object code of the program susceptible to reverse engineering. On\nthe other hand, patent law though attempts to provide protection in its\nentirety to computer programs, concerns regarding the longer duration and monopolistic\nnature is raised. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\nproponents of copyright protection to computer programs argues that it saves\ntime and cost unlike patent protection which needs the approval of\nadministrative authority. The copyright protection subsist as soon as the programmer\nwrites the code and there is no compulsion to get it registered. The protection\nof \u2018expression of idea\u2019 under copyright also promotes innovation and creativity\nby utilization of the underlying idea in different manifestation. That\u2019s, to\nsay there is less fear of infringement. The duration of lifetime of the author\nplus 60-70 years after the death depending on the jurisdiction also provides\nhuge window for the exploitation of rights. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On\nthe other hand, the proponent of patent protection of computer programs points\nout the inherent difficulties posed by the copyright regime and thus argues for\nstronger form of protection. The patent protection of software fills the void\ncreated by copyright by granting protection to the computer program as a whole\nincluding object code i.e. idea as well. Moreover, considering software as\n\u2018invention\u2019 under patent regime allows the patent holder to exclude others from\nmaking, using, selling his invention and thus, the doctrine of fair use is\ninapplicable. Moreover, patent protection acts to incentive computer programmers\nor developer to innovate and advance the software.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However,\nthe critics of patent protection to computer program raises following issues:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol><li>Procedural\nDifficulties: Unlike copyright, for the protection of patent one\nmust have to apply to the patent office which often takes 2 years which is\nquite high in comparison to the product life cycle of the software itself.<a href=\"#_ftn49\">[49]<\/a> Moreover,\nthe procedure and protection under patent law entails huge cost and expense.<\/li><li>Fulfilment of\ntechnical requirement: The patent protection requires the\ncomputer program to have \u2018inventive step\u2019 which becomes very difficult to prove\nin the case of software. Moreover, with the innovation in software industry a\nsingle computer program might include millions of code involving thousands of\npatents.<a href=\"#_ftn50\">[50]<\/a><\/li><li>Time duration of\n20 years:\u00a0 Considering\nthe dynamic nature of the software industry, granting exclusive rights to\npatent holder to exploit and restrict the computer program might result in hindering\ngrowth and development of the industry.<\/li><li>Fear of\ninfringement: Since patent law provides protection to the broad\nsubject matter, it might result in hostile environment in the industry and will\ncreate fear of infringement.<\/li><li>Creation of\nMonopoly: The exclusive right for the period of years along\nwith such broad protection of subject matter will likely result in creation of\nmonopoly by the patent holder.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Looking_Around_The_Major_Jurisdiction_For_Protection_Of_Software\"><\/span><strong>Looking Around The Major Jurisdiction For Protection Of Software<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>With\nthe rapid innovation and advancement in computer technology, the need for\nstronger intellectual property regime was felt which gave rise to the debate\nconcerning protection of computer program under patent regime. The proponents\nfor the patent protection to computer software argues that it is much stronger\nand effective form of protection in comparison to copyright law as patent law\nprotects both object and source code of the program. Few jurisdiction thus have\nrecognized computer program to be eligible for patent protection, however other\njurisdictions are offering only copyright protection to the same. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>International\nconventions and treaties also does not provide clear framework regarding the\npatent protection of the computer program. For instance, Article 27 of the\nTRIPS Agreement leaves on the individual member nation to decide the subject\nmatter for the patentability of any technological invention.\u00a0 Moreover, the scope Berne Convention is only\nrestricted to copyright protection of computer software.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"United_States\"><\/span>United States:<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p> It is settled principle in United States that computer program are patentable subject matter if they are claimed as a part of hardware. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"European_Community\"><\/span>European Community: <span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>Article 52(2) of the European Patent Code clearly excludes computer program to be eligible for patent protection. However, the practice of European Patent Office point out towards different trend. The patent office often grants patent protection to computer program if it fulfils technical requirement under the patent law. In the case of IBM<a href=\"#_ftn51\">[51]<\/a>, the court held that software are patentable if they make any technical contribution. Similarly, in the case of Hitachi while emphasising on the requirement of technical contribution held that it can either take form of physical attributes or functionality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Finally,\nthe European Commission proposed EU Software Patents Directive which clarified\nthe subject matter of patent law under EU patent law.<a href=\"#_ftn52\">[52]<\/a>\nThe directive extends the patent protection to the computer software only if it\nis embedded in any hardware.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"India\"><\/span>India: <span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>The parliament through the Patent Amendment Act, 2005 attempted to extend patent protection to computer program under clause 3(k) of the Act. However, the proposal could not be passed by the house of parliament. Thus, the computer program in India are only offered protection under copyright law and thus, are not subject matter of patent protection. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Japan\"><\/span>Japan: <span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>Article 2(3)(i) of the Patent Act includes computer programs to be subject matter of patent protection subject to qualification relating to &#8216;creation of technical ideas utilizing the law of nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Considering\nthe dynamic and growing nature of the software industry, the researcher\nbelieves that the best form of protection available to the computer program is\nunder the copyright regime. Though it throws challenges in the form of\nidea-expression dichotomy and weaker level of protection, but copyright law\nallows space to accommodate other program and. Thus, can help in furthering\ninnovation and development of the software industry alongside balancing the\nrights of the programmers as well.<br><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p>*LLM\nStudent, Corporate and Commercial Law, National University of Juridical\nScience, Kolkata.<\/p>\n\n\n\n[1] <em>Information Technology<\/em>, (18 September, 2019, 5.00 PM), https:\/\/www.defit.org\/information-technology\/.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\">[2]<\/a> Section 2 (v), Information\nTechnology Act, 2000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\">[3]<\/a> <em>10 Top Software Development Trends in 2019 <\/em>(20\nSeptember, 2019, 12.23 AM), https:\/\/hackernoon.com\/10-top-software-development-trends-a12d25f5fd2d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref4\">[4]<\/a> Section 2 (ffc), Copyright Act,\n1957.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref5\">[5]<\/a> HUGH LADDIE, THE MODERN LAW OF\nCOPYRIGHT AND DESIGNS at 797-798, Butterworths Publications, Vol. I, 2<sup>nd<\/sup>\ned. 1995.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref6\">[6]<\/a> <em>The Declaration of Independence and Natural Rights<\/em>, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOUNDATION, (18 September, 2019,\n5.25 PM), https:\/\/www.crf-usa.org\/foundations-of-our-constitution\/natural-rights.html.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref7\">[7]<\/a> Balew Mersha &#038; Kahsay\nDebesu, <em>Theories of Intellectual Property<\/em>, ABYSSINIA LAW, (18 September, 2019, 5.25 PM),\nhttps:\/\/www.abyssinialaw.com\/online-resources\/study-on-line\/item\/468-theories-of-intellectual-property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref8\">[8]<\/a> William Fisher, <em>Theories of Intellectual Property<\/em>,\nHARVARD LAW, (18 September, 2019, 5.37 PM), <a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.harvard.edu\/faculty\/tfisher\/iptheory.html\">http:\/\/www.law.harvard.edu\/faculty\/tfisher\/iptheory.html<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref9\">[9]<\/a> Fekadu Asmamaw, <em>Software Patents: Justifications And\nArguments, <\/em>ABYSSINIA LAW, (18 September, 2019,\n5.40 PM), abyssinialaw.com\/blog-posts\/item\/1469-software-patents-justifications-and-arguments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref10\">[10]<\/a> DAVID BAINBRIDGE, SOFTWARE COPYRIGHT\nLAW at 10, Butterworths Publication (1999), 4<sup>th<\/sup> ed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref11\">[11]<\/a> Md. Rahmatullah, Atif Siddiqui, <em>Software Protection under Intellectual\nProperty Rights Regime: An Analysis<\/em>, 24 ALJ (2016-17) 209.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref12\">[12]<\/a> Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, <em>Copyright-patent dichotomy in context of\ncomputer programs<\/em>, (2008) PL Sept 9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref13\">[13]<\/a> <em>supra<\/em> note 10.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref14\">[14]<\/a> <em>supra<\/em> note 11.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref15\">[15]<\/a> 1984 FSR 246<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref16\">[16]<\/a> <em>supra<\/em> note 11.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref17\">[17]<\/a> Hsiu-Ru Chien and Esther Lin, <em>Copyright infringement issues concerning\nadaptations of computer software<\/em>, LEXOLOGY, (18 September, 2019, 6.00 PM),\nhttps:\/\/www.lexology.com\/library\/detail.aspx?g=3802ceca-6595-447d-93c4-c80d978ccb38.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref18\">[18]<\/a> 101 U.S. 99 (1879).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref19\">[19]<\/a> Adarsh Ramanujan, <em>Idea Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law<\/em>,\nLAKSHMISRI (19 September, 2019, 11.00\nAM),https:\/\/www.lakshmisri.com\/Uploads\/MediaTypes\/Documents\/WHITE_PAPER_IP_article_idea_expression_dichotomy_esheeta-REVISED.pdf.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref20\">[20]<\/a> 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1986).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref21\">[21]<\/a> Pramod Nair, Copyright\nProtection for Computer Software, (2004) 7 SCC J 31.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref22\">[22]<\/a> <em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref23\">[23]<\/a> 714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref24\">[24]<\/a> 107\nS. Ct. 877 (1987).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref25\">[25]<\/a> 101\nU.S. 99 (1879.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref26\">[26]<\/a> 740\nF.Supp. 37 (D.Mass. 1990).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref27\">[27]<\/a> 648\nF. Supp. 1127.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref28\">[28]<\/a> Karen J. Kramer, Extending\nCopyright Protection to a Computer Program&#8217;s Structure. Whelan Associates, Inc.\nv. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc. 797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986), 65 Wash. U. L.\nQ. 471 (1987).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref29\">[29]<\/a> <em>Id.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref30\">[30]<\/a> 982\nF.2d 693.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref31\">[31]<\/a> Philip Greenspun &#038; Ors., <em>Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison in\nSoftware Copyright Litigation<\/em>, (20 September, 2019, 3.00 PM),\nhttp:\/\/philip.greenspun.com\/software\/abstraction-filtration-comparison\/.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref32\">[32]<\/a> <em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref33\">[33]<\/a> 167\nF.R.D. 90 (D.C. Col. 1996).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref34\">[34]<\/a> 409\nU.S. 63 (1972).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref35\">[35]<\/a> 437\nU.S. 584 (1978).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref36\">[36]<\/a> 450\nU.S. 175 (1981).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref37\">[37]<\/a> <em>supra<\/em> note 10.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref38\">[38]<\/a> 958\nF.2d 1053.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref39\">[39]<\/a> 149\nF.3d 1368.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref40\">[40]<\/a> \u00a0545\nF.3d 943.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref41\">[41]<\/a> 561\nU.S. 593 (2010).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref42\">[42]<\/a> 573\nU.S. 208 (2014).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref43\">[43]<\/a> Article 39 of Agreement on\nTrade-related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref44\">[44]<\/a> Ibid. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref45\">[45]<\/a>Basit Rida Hijab, <em>Classification of Clauses in Non-Disclosure\nAgreements (NDAs),<\/em> CENTER FOR LANGUAGE ENGINEERING, (20 Spetember, 2019, 4.17\nPM) at\nhttp:\/\/cle.org.pk\/research\/news10\/presentation\/ClassificationofClausesinNon-DisclosureAgreements.pdf.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref46\">[46]<\/a>Singh and Associates, <em>Non-compete clause in the Indian law of\ncontracts &#8211; an insight<\/em>, (20 September, 2019, 7.55 PM),\u00a0 https:\/\/www.lexology.com\/library\/detail.aspx?g=31ca32d5-6c37-4f0e-a647-869666352b17.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref47\">[47]<\/a> Gregory J. Maier, <em>Software Proprotection\u2013Integrating Patent,\nCopyright And Trade Secret Law, Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office\nSociety, March 1987, Volume 69, No. 3.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref48\">[48]<\/a>Jay R. Dratler, Trade Secret Law:\nAn Impediment to Trade in Computer Software , 1 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 27\n(1985). <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref49\">[49]<\/a> Robert C. Scheinfeld &#038; Gary\nM. Butter, Using Trade Secret Law to Protect Computer Software, 17 Rutgers\nComputer &#038; Tech. L.J., 381, 405-06 (1991).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref50\">[50]<\/a> <em>supra<\/em> note 10.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref51\">[51]<\/a>\nECLI:EP:BA:1998:T117397.19980701, 1998.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref52\">[52]<\/a> The patentability of computer program\nDiscussion of European-level legislation in the field of patents for software,\nDIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR RESEARCH, EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, (20 September, 2019,\n11.50 PM), <a href=\"http:\/\/www.europarl.europa.eu\/meetdocs\/committees\/juri\/20020619\/SoftwarePatent.pub.pdf\">http:\/\/www.europarl.europa.eu\/meetdocs\/committees\/juri\/20020619\/SoftwarePatent.pub.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Nishita Shrivastava | NUJS, Kolkata | 28th October 2019 Introduction Information technology refers to \u201ccombination of software and hardware products and services that people use to manage, access, communicate, and share information.\u201d[1] \u00a0\u00a0With the aim to regulate various facets of information technology, the Indian Information Technology Act, 2000 defines \u2018information\u2019 to include \u201cdata, message, text, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":167,"featured_media":267,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[34,50],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v21.8.1 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Interface between Intellectual Property and Information technology with special reference to \u2018Software\u2019 - LexForti<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Interface between Intellectual Property and Information technology with special reference to \u2018Software\u2019 - LexForti\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Nishita Shrivastava | NUJS, Kolkata | 28th October 2019 Introduction Information technology refers to \u201ccombination of software and hardware products and services that people use to manage, access, communicate, and share information.\u201d[1] \u00a0\u00a0With the aim to regulate various facets of information technology, the Indian Information Technology Act, 2000 defines \u2018information\u2019 to include \u201cdata, message, text, [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LexForti\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-04-23T10:29:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-01-17T12:13:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/merry-bright-2.jpg?fit=400%2C225&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"225\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"LexForti Legal News Network\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@https:\/\/twitter.com\/lex_forti\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"LexForti Legal News Network\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"LexForti Legal News Network\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/dc82860cbb04dab62a7b0a28b0cabc88\"},\"headline\":\"Interface between Intellectual Property and Information technology with special reference to \u2018Software\u2019\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-04-23T10:29:48+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-01-17T12:13:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/\"},\"wordCount\":5349,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Contemporary Legal Issue\",\"Intellectual Property Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/\",\"name\":\"Interface between Intellectual Property and Information technology with special reference to \u2018Software\u2019 - LexForti\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-04-23T10:29:48+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-01-17T12:13:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Interface between Intellectual Property and Information technology with special reference to \u2018Software\u2019\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"LexForti\",\"description\":\"Legal\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization\",\"name\":\"LexForti Legal News & Journal\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1\",\"width\":404,\"height\":404,\"caption\":\"LexForti Legal News & Journal\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/lexforti\/\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/lex-forti\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/dc82860cbb04dab62a7b0a28b0cabc88\",\"name\":\"LexForti Legal News Network\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/159134300345793876-96x96.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/159134300345793876-96x96.png\",\"caption\":\"LexForti Legal News Network\"},\"description\":\"LexForti Legal News and Journal offer access to a wide array of legal knowledge through the Daily Legal News segment of our Website. It provides the readers with the latest case laws in layman terms. Our Legal Journal contains a vast assortment of resources that helps in understanding contemporary legal issues.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/lexforti\/\",\"http:\/\/linkedin.com\/company\/lex-forti\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/https:\/\/twitter.com\/lex_forti\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCRT9bwtsiRtF-RYr4G2dv3w\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/author\/lexforti-legal-news-network\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Interface between Intellectual Property and Information technology with special reference to \u2018Software\u2019 - LexForti","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Interface between Intellectual Property and Information technology with special reference to \u2018Software\u2019 - LexForti","og_description":"Nishita Shrivastava | NUJS, Kolkata | 28th October 2019 Introduction Information technology refers to \u201ccombination of software and hardware products and services that people use to manage, access, communicate, and share information.\u201d[1] \u00a0\u00a0With the aim to regulate various facets of information technology, the Indian Information Technology Act, 2000 defines \u2018information\u2019 to include \u201cdata, message, text, [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/","og_site_name":"LexForti","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti","article_published_time":"2020-04-23T10:29:48+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-01-17T12:13:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":400,"height":225,"url":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/merry-bright-2.jpg?fit=400%2C225&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"LexForti Legal News Network","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@https:\/\/twitter.com\/lex_forti","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"LexForti Legal News Network","Est. reading time":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/"},"author":{"name":"LexForti Legal News Network","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/dc82860cbb04dab62a7b0a28b0cabc88"},"headline":"Interface between Intellectual Property and Information technology with special reference to \u2018Software\u2019","datePublished":"2020-04-23T10:29:48+00:00","dateModified":"2021-01-17T12:13:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/"},"wordCount":5349,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Contemporary Legal Issue","Intellectual Property Law"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/","name":"Interface between Intellectual Property and Information technology with special reference to \u2018Software\u2019 - LexForti","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-04-23T10:29:48+00:00","dateModified":"2021-01-17T12:13:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/interface-between-intellectual-property-and-information-technology-with-special-reference-to-software\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Interface between Intellectual Property and Information technology with special reference to \u2018Software\u2019"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/","name":"LexForti","description":"Legal","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization","name":"LexForti Legal News & Journal","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1","width":404,"height":404,"caption":"LexForti Legal News & Journal"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/lexforti\/","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/lex-forti\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/dc82860cbb04dab62a7b0a28b0cabc88","name":"LexForti Legal News Network","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/159134300345793876-96x96.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/159134300345793876-96x96.png","caption":"LexForti Legal News Network"},"description":"LexForti Legal News and Journal offer access to a wide array of legal knowledge through the Daily Legal News segment of our Website. It provides the readers with the latest case laws in layman terms. Our Legal Journal contains a vast assortment of resources that helps in understanding contemporary legal issues.","sameAs":["https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/lexforti\/","http:\/\/linkedin.com\/company\/lex-forti","https:\/\/twitter.com\/https:\/\/twitter.com\/lex_forti","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCRT9bwtsiRtF-RYr4G2dv3w"],"url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/author\/lexforti-legal-news-network\/"}]}},"views":202,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/167"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=266"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8082,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266\/revisions\/8082"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/267"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=266"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=266"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=266"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}