Extended subject – matter under intellectual property law: The paradigm of copyright, trademarks and patents regarding Computer Icons and Graphical User Interfaces

Published: May 26, 2024
intellectual property subject – matter extension Computer Icons Graphic Users Interface
Leandros Lefakis

Purpose – Intellectual property law has developed legal rules that carefully balance competing interests. It is a fact that the main goal has long been to provide legal protection to maximize incentives to engage in creative and innovative activities, while also providing rules and doctrines that minimize the effect on the commercial marketplace and diminish interference with the free flow of ideas in general. This article examines the extension of the subject - matter that can be protected under intellectual property law. The extensive view of protectable subject - matter via intellectual property has blurred the clear delineation between patent, copyright, and trademark law. This has led to overlapping protection which allows multiple means to protect the same subject - matter. Such protection is problematic because it interferes with the carefully developed doctrines that have evolved over time to balance the private property rights against public access to creations protected by intellectual property. Approach and
Originality/value - This article discusses a new topic concerning the extension domain of subject - matter protected by patents, trademarks and copyright law regarding computer icons and graphical user interface. Furthermore, it examines the overlaps that exist and the resulting problems regarding these specific areas of intellectual property law.
Findings - The extension of the subject - matter protected under patent, copyright, or trademark law should only occur if it does not subvert the balance of intellectual property law per se. The reason is that uncareful expansion could cause unintended over-protection of the rights of creators and innovators in contrast to the public interest. The paradigm of CIs and GUIs fits perfectly with the view expressed above.

Article Details
  • Section
  • Research Articles
Hylton J.G., Callies D.L, Mandelker D.R., Franzese P.A., Property Law & The Public Interest: Cases and Materials, 3 rd ed., 2007, 52.
Karny G., In Defense of Gene Patenting, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, April 1, 2007, 1, http://www.genengnews.com/gen-articles/in-defense- of-gene-patenting/2052/ (Accessed October 9, 2020).
Beckerman – Rodau A., The problem with Intellectual Property Rights: Subject Matter Expansion, Yale Journal of Law and Technology, vol. 13, issue 1, 38-39.
Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 51 Cal. 3d 120, 135-36 (1990).
Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748,760-62 (1976) (holding First Amendment free speech rights extend to commercial speech).
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).
Cornish W.R. Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 3 rd edition, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1996, 581.
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9 th Circ. 1995).
patent no. 1317678. https://www.ic.gc.ca/opic- cipo/cpd/eng/search/number.html (Accessed October 9, 2020).
Gifford J., Computer Icons: Multiple Protection Options, one valuable IP asset, available at https://www.smartbiggar.ca/insights/publication/com puter-icons-multiple-protection-options-one-valuable- ip-asset (Accessed October 9, 2020).
Lefakis L.K., Biotechnology Patents (in Greek), Sakkoulas Publications, Athens – Thessaloniki, 2004, 98.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 317 (1980)
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980)
Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3221 (2010)
Goldstein P., Copyright, Patent, Trademark and Related State Doctrines: Cases and Materials on the Law of Intellectual Property, 4 th edition, 1999, 556.
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995).
Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954).
Louis De Jonge & Co. v. Breuker & Kessler Co., 182 F. 150, 151-152 (S.E.D. Pa. 1910). 28 Ibid. Journal of Integrated Information Management - Vol 05, No 01 33
Jones Bros. Co. v. Underkoffler, 16 F. Supp. 729, 731 (M.D. PA. 1936).
In re Yardley, 493 F.2d 1389, 1393 (C.C.P.A. 1974).
J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, 534 U.S. 124 (2001).
Koukal P., Graphical User Interfaces and Their Protection in the European Union, Horizons in Computer Science Research, 2018, 145, 149.
Benkard G., et al., (2015), Patentgesetz, Gebrauchsmustergesetz, München, C. H. Beck Verlag [Patent Law, Utility Model Law. Munich, C. H. Beck Publishers.
Saffer D., (2010), Designing for Interaction, Second Edition: Creating Innovative Applications and Devices, Berkeley, New riders.