How to Use This Chart Definitions of Terms

Copyright Footnotes

1.	*Albania	Computer software is expressly protected under the Law on Copyright No. 7564, May 1992, as amended by Law No. 7923, April 1995, by Law No. 8594, April 2000, and by Law No. 8630, July 2000.
2.	Argentina	In November 1998, Argentina passed an amendment (Law No. 25.036 of November 11, 1998) to the Copyright Act of 1933. As amended, this law expressly protects computer software.
3.	Armenia	Computer software is expressly protected under the Copyright Law of 2000.
4.	Azerbaijan	Computer software is protected under Law No. 438, On Copyrights and Related Rights, which became effective in October 1996.
5.	Belarus	Computer software is expressly protected under the Law on Copyrights and Related Rights, which became effective on August 11, 1998.
6.	*Belize	Computer software is expressly protected under the Copyright Act (CAP. 252 of the Substantive Laws of Belize) 2000.
7.	Bolivia	Computer software is protected under Bolivia’s 1992 Copyright Law (Law No. 1322), as supplemented by certain software-related regulations that were implemented by presidential decree on April 25, 1997.
8.	Bosnia & Herzegovina	Computer software is protected under the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, which became effective on October 24, 2002.
9.	Brazil	Computer software is protected under the Software Law (Law No. 9,609), effective February 20, 1998, and the Copyright Law (Law No., 9,610), effective June 20, 1998.
10.	*Brunei Darussalam	The Emergency (Copyright) Order 1999, enacted on May 1, 2000, expressly protects computer software.
11.	Chile	Computer software is protected under the Intellectual Property Law No. 17,366, dated October 2, 1970, amended 1992.
12.	Costa Rica	In May 1994, copyright protection under Costa Rica’s copyright law (No. 6683 of October 1, 1982) was expressly extended to cover computer software.
13.	Cyprus	An amendment to the 1976 Copyright Act that expressly extends protection to computer software became effective on January 1, 1994.
14.	*Czech Republic	Czech Republic: Computer software is expressly protected under Law No. 121/2000 Coll. of April 7, 2000 on Copyright, Rights Related to Copyright and on the Amendment of Certain Laws (Copyright Act).
15.	Dominican Republic	On October 24, 2000, a copyright law became effective to, among other things, make the Dominican Republic TRIPS-compliant in areas such as express protection of computer software as a literary work, protection for databases and a minimum term of protection.
16.	Ecuador	Computer software is expressly protected under the Law on Intellectual Property (Law No. 83), which came into force on May 19, 1998.
17.	Egypt	Egypt: Computer software is expressly protected under the Intellectual Property Rights Code, which became on effective June 3, 2002.
18.	Georgia	Computer software is expressly protected under the Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, which became effective in June 1999.
19.	Guatemala	Computer software is expressly protected under Law on Copyright and Related Rights, Law No. 33-98, effective in June 1998, as amended by Decree No. 56-2000 of November 2000.
20.	Iceland	In 1996, Iceland passed an amendment (Act No. 145) to the Copyright Act of 1972. As amended, this law expressly protects computer software.
21.	Japan	No copyright protection exists in Japan for syntax, algorithms or programming languages.
22.	Kazakhstan	Computer software is expressly protected under the Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, which became effective on June 12, 1996.
23.	Kuwait	Computer software is expressly protected under the Decree Law No. 64/1999 Relating to Intellectual Property Rights, which became effective on February 9, 2000.
24.	Kyrgyzstan	Computer software is expressly protected under the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, which became effective on January 22, 1998.
25.	Lebanon	Lebanon enacted a copyright law, effective June 14, 1999, which protects computer software.
26.	*Liechtenstein	Computer software is expressly protected under Law of May 19, 1999 regarding the Copyright and Neighboring Rights (Copyright Law).
27.	*Lithuania	Computer software is expressly protected under the Law on Copyright and Related Rights No. VIII-1185, May 1999, as amended by Law No. VIII-1886 of July 2000 and Law No. IX-1355 of March 2003.
28.	*Luxembourg	Computer software is protected under the Law on Copyright, Related Rights and Databases of April 18, 2001, as amended by the Law of April 18, 2004, effective May 3, 2004.
29.	Macau	Macau enacted a copyright law (Decree Law No. 43/99/M), effective October 1, 1999, which protects computer software.
30.	*Macedonia	Computer software is expressly protected under the Law on Copyright and Related Rights No. 47/96, September 1996 and No. 3/98, January 1998.
31.	Moldova	Computer software is expressly protected under the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, which became effective on May 3, 1995.
32.	Oman	Computer software is protected under the Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighboring Rights (Law No. 37/2000), which came into force on May 21, 2000.
33.	Panama	Computer software is protected under Panama’s copyright law (Law No. 15), which came into force on January 1, 1995.
34.	Peru	Computer software is protected under the Copyright Law—Ley de Derechos de Autor (Legislative Decree No. 822), which came into force on May 24, 1996.
35.	Qatar	Computer software is protected under the Qatar Copyright Law, which came into force on October 3, 2002.
36.	Romania	On March 14, 1996, Romania’s president signed its copyright law, which expressly protects computer software. The law became effective June 24, 1996.
37.	*Saudi Arabia	A new Saudi Arabia Copyright Law, which expressly protects computer software, reportedly became effective on March 19, 2004.
38.	Slovakia	Computer software is expressly protected under the Copyright Act (No. 383/1997), which came into force on December 5, 1997.
39.	Tajikistan	Computer software is expressly protected under the Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, which became effective on December 17, 1998.
40.	Turkey	Amendments to the 1951 Copyright Law passed in June 1995 expressly extend copyright protection to computer software.
41.	Ukraine	Computer software is protected under the Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, which became effective on February 23, 1994.
42.	United Arab Emirates	In 2002, the United Arab Emirates enacted a Copyright Law, Federal Law No. 7 of 2002. The law, which repealed the previous law, includes computer programs as a protected category of works.
43.	Uzbekistan	Computer software is expressly protected under the Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, which became effective on September 17, 1996.
44.	Vietnam	Under the Bilateral Copyright Agreement between the United States and Vietnam, effective December 23, 1998, Vietnam agreed to provide copyright protection, on a national treatment basis, to works (including computer software) of U.S. authors that are first published in either country.

back to top

Patent Footnotes

a.	European Patent Convention:	Subject matter protection is available based on the EPO’s application of the technical effects doctrine if an application is filed in the EPO rather than in the individual member country. Vicom Systems Applications, T208/84, 2 EPOR 74, EPO Appeal Board (1987).
b.	Argentina:	A leading Argentine case states that if a process is patentable in itself, the use of a computer means in its performance does not affect its patentability. Thus, when software is described as a means and the device is also claimed, that invention is patentable. (IBM v. La Nacion Argentina s/Deregatoria, September 1974).
c.	Eurasian Patent Convention:	As in the European Patent Convention, the provisions of the Eurasian Patent Convention do not recognize algorithms and computer programs, as such, as patentable subject matter. However, because the European Patent Organization assisted in the preparation of the Eurasian Patent Convention, these provisions of the Eurasian Patent Convention are likely to be interpreted similarly to the corresponding provisions of the European Patent Convention. However, there is no case law yet that would confirm such an interpretation.
d.	Australia:	CCOM v. Jiejing, 122 ALR-417 (1994), interpreting the Australian Patent Act, as amended April 30, 1991.
e.	Belize:	Protection may be granted to a patent granted by the U.K. patent office or the EPO designating the United Kingdom.
f.	Brazil:	Inventions involving the use of computer software may be patentable provided they are of technical character (new and utilizable by industry). For example, if computer software is used to control a machine, a patent may be available for the machine. (Brazil Law #9279 (May 14, 1996), effective May 15, 1997).
g.	China (PRC):	Inventions involving the use of computer software may be patentable in the PRC, even if the software concerned forms the major part of the invention, as a technical solution relating to a product, process or improvement.
h.	Dominican Republic:	Provided one confirms a non-Dominican Republic software patent (e.g., by registering a U.S. patent).
i.	Hong Kong:	A June 27, 1997 patent ordinance provides protection provided that one registers a patent granted by the UK Patent Office, by the EPO designating the United Kingdom, or by the Chinese Patent Office.
j.	India:	India’s Patents (Second Amendment) Act, which took effect July 11, 2002, excludes, among other things, a mathematical or business method, a computer program per se and algorithms from patentability. Many commentators believe that the inclusion of the per se language after computer program brings India’s patent law more in line with the technical effects doctrine promulgated by the EPO.
k.	Norway:	Norway has reconciled its national patent law with the European Patent Convention even though it is not a member.
l.	Panama:	The Industrial Property Law that came into effect on November 15, 1996, states that patents shall not be granted for software programs per se.
m.	Philippines:	Section 22.2 of the Philippines office Manual of Substantive Procedure states: A computer program claimed by itself or as a record on a carrier, is not patentable irrespective of its content. The situation is not normally changed when the computer program is loaded into a known computer. If, however, the subject-matter as claimed makes a technical contribution to the known art, patentability should not be denied merely on the ground that a computer program is involved in its implementation. It follows also that, where the claimed subject-matter is concerned only with the program-controlled internal working of a known computer, the subject-matter could be patentable if it provides a technical effect.
n.	Serbia & Montenegro:	Implementation of computer software in technical processes is patentable.
o.	Singapore:	Singapore patent regulations allow for a Singapore patent application to proceed to grant by conforming the specification of the Singapore application to that of the corresponding granted U.S. patent and using the granted U.S. patent as prima facie evidence of patentability.
p.	South Africa:	South Africa patent law prohibits the patentability of computer programs as such. It is thus believed that the patent law does not prevent the patenting of software-related inventions so long as they are claimed as methods or as a hardware adapted to perform particular functions.
q.	Thailand:	The Thai Patent Office is currently studying the issue of software patentability. However, a commentator for the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property believes that a software-related invention will be considered patentable subject matter.
x.	EPO Extension Countries:	For EPO extension countries, subject matter protection is available by filing a special request to extend an EPO patent application to the applicable extension country.

Sources Other than Direct Authority: International Intellectual Property Alliance; U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs; U.S. Department of State, Office of International Information Programs; World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; World Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

back to top

How to Use This Chart

This chart can be used to determine if subject matter protection is currently available in a particular country for either a U.S. or foreign party's software.

The entry under "Copyright" indicates whether subject matter protection is available for software under the national copyright law of a particular country. If so, the second step is to determine if protection is available for a U.S. work in that country. To do so, look at the entry under "Memberships" to see if there is an applicable mutual membership or a bilateral agreement between the United States and that country. If there is, subject matter protection is probably available. Use the same approach to determine if protection is available for a foreign party's software in another foreign country (except that relevant bilateral agreements are not identified). For example, a Japanese author would look at the "Memberships" entries to determine if Japan and a specific country have a common convention or organization membership.

The entry under "Patent" indicates whether subject matter protection is available for software in the specified country, under either national law or supranational law, such as the European Patent Convention. Patent treaties to which the country belongs are identified under "Memberships." While a common convention membership means that national treatment will be provided, a patent application may be filed in some countries even when no common membership exists.

Local counsel should be consulted before distributing software in a particular market to confirm and update the information in this chart and to advise on the practicality of enforcement, evidentiary considerations and other protection mechanisms.

back to top

Definitions of Terms Used in This Chart

"Yes"

—

subject matter protection for software is available pursuant to legislation, and, in the case of patent only, is confirmed by significant case law precedent, or presidential decree expressly protecting software.

"Probably"

—

significant case law precedent supports subject matter protection.

"Maybe"

—

subject matter protection may exist based on, for example, a favorable lower court opinion, views of commentators or the ability to register software in the country's copyright office.

"No"

—

no substantial indication of subject matter protection for software.

"Unknown"

—

no information identified.

Convention and Organization Memberships

"B"

—

Berne Convention

"U"

—

Universal Copyright Convention

"P"

—

Paris Convention

"E"

—

European Patent Convention

"C"

—

Patent Cooperation Treaty

"A"

—

Eurasian Patent Convention

"W"

—

World Trade Organization (TRIPS)

Home Copyright Protection Trademark Protection Patent Protection TRIPS Contractual Protection U. S. Border Charts
Fenwick & West LLP Contact Info Terms of Use

The contents of this Web page are not intended, and cannot be considered, as legal advice or opinion.
©2003—2007 Fenwick & West LLP · San Francisco · Silicon Valley · California · All rights reserved.