2020年起Covid-19疫情趨使全球產業加速數位化，扮演各種數位化核心工具之軟體程式功不可沒，此時對軟體業者而言，以何種智慧財產權保護其研發成果則顯得更加重要，惟近年來無論電腦軟體專利權或著作權保護之爭訟仍持續不斷，且法院亦不斷推翻過往判例之見解，權利人除應熟知成文法外，更應深入通盤瞭解與軟體相關法規動態及訴訟實務之演變，並結合實務經驗以找出最妥適保護軟體程式之權利範圍與界限，始能採取有效保護軟體程式之管理策略，降低法律風險並提升產品價值，以達投入有限資源，即能有效維護及最佳化管理軟體智慧財產權之成效。

美國憲法明文規定，「國會有權為促進科學與實用技藝之進步，對創作人及發明人的著作及發明，在一定期限內給予專屬權保護」，雖自美國最高法院於1879年做出Baker v. Selden判決以降，美國著作權法與專利法逐漸發展出各自專屬的保護範圍與界限，惟從近年美國司法判例(決)中研析可得知，無論是改變過往軟體專利適格性基準的Alice案，或是Oracle與Google兩造間纏訟十年的著作權爭議案，電腦軟體專利權與著作權保護範圍與界限不斷更動，時而擴張、時而緊縮，本文從兩種權利之本質與源起、法規構成要件與架構、權利保護主體、權利保護客體、權利保護之適格性、權利保護界線與範圍、權利濫用及權利發生等各種要件進行比較，試圖藉此找出難以掌握的法律保護範圍及輪廓。

本文透過研析近年來重要及指標性判例(決)後，並從中拆解出電腦軟體著作權及專利權各項要素並比較後，發現共通點為必須回歸到智慧財產權法律保護之權利本質與原點，探求法律保護之法理基礎，智慧財產權法著重衡平公眾利益及私權保護，隨時代演進科技日新月異，法院見解亦會隨之更動，本文認為應回歸法律保護本質，權利人應瞭解自身研發成果之屬性地位後，建構合身的技術、法律、管理黃金三角策略，並提出實質建議，以申請取得軟體專利權保護、以著作權保護、同時以專利權及著作權保護、以營業秘密保護等四大方向，再向下分別實施不同維護及管理策略，才能有效維護及最佳化管理軟體智慧財產權。

Since 2020, the Covid-19 epidemic accelerated the digitalization of global industries, and software programs play the role of digitalization core tools. At this time, it is more important for software companies to protect their research and development results with intellectual property rights. However, in recent years, disputes over computer software patent or copyright protection have continued, and the courts have constantly reversed the precedent opinions. In addition to being familiar with statutory laws, right owers should know software-related laws, regulations and litigation cases well. Evolve and combine practical experience to find the most appropriate scope and boundaries of rights to protect software programs. Only then can we adopt effective management strategies to protect software programs, reduce legal risks and increase product value, so that we can effectively maintain and manage our intellectual property rights of software by investing limited resources.

The U.S. Constitution expressly stipulates that “The congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. Although the Supreme Court of the United States made precedent of Baker in 1879, it established the rule to distinguish the copyright and patent of the United States, and they both developed their own exclusive scope and boundaries. However, by analyzing the US judicial precedents (decisions) in recent years, whether the patent-eligible dispute in Alice case or copyright dispute between Oracle and Google. We can find the scope and boundary of software patent and copyright are constantly changing, it sometimes expand, sometimes narrow. This article compare the constituent elements and framework of laws and regulations of the two rights, by studying the essence and origin, the subject of rights protection, the object of rights protection, the eligibility of rights protection, the boundary and scope of rights protection, the abuse of rights and the occurrence of rights. In an attempt to find out the precise scope and contour of legal protection.

This article study important and indicator judicial precedents (decisions) in recent years, compares the elements of software copyright and patent , finds the conclusion of common point is that right owers need to knowledge the essence and origin of the legal protection of intellectual property rights. The intellectual property law focuses on balancing public interests and private rights. The court’s opinions will change according with the evolving technology. This article believes that the right owers should understand their own research and development results. After the attribute of software, construct a suitable three-in-one (technology/law/management) golden triangle strategy, the article makes four substantive suggestions for right owers to protect software. By patent, by copyright, by patent and copyright at the same time, and by trade secret .And implement different maintenance and management strategies respectively in order to effectively maintain and manage the software intellectual property rights.

一、中文參考資料

(一)中文期刊、論文及官方文件
李界昇，從開放原始碼運動探討軟體專利制度的改革，科技法學評論，1卷2期，頁427-472(2004年)。
林利芝，初探人工智慧的著作權爭議―以著作人身分為中心，智慧財產權月刊，第237期，頁61-78(2018年)。
林洋光，電腦程式保護之比較─以專利法和著作權法為中心，國立成功大學法律學研究所碩士論文(2012年)。
洪振盛，Alice案後美國電腦軟體專利適格性之發展，智慧財產權月刊，第211期，頁66-89(2016年)。
胡心蘭，權利耗盡不耗盡—簡析數位著作次級市場之建構，智慧財產權月刊，第209期，(2016年)。
范銘祥，電腦程式之智慧財產權保護，智慧財產權月刊，第87期，頁34-51(2006年)。
張俊宏，從美國Oracle America,Inc. v. Google,Inc.案探討電腦程式著作之爭議，智慧財產權月刊，第209期，頁61-81(2016年)。
陳昭妤，論人工智慧創作與發明之法律保護―以著作權與專利權利主體為中心，國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所碩士學位論文(2017年)。
陳歆，著作權潔淨室Copyright Clean Room，智慧財產權月刊，頁1(1999年)。
陳豐年，專利權之歷史溯源與利弊初探，智慧財產權月刊，第156期，頁74(2011年)。
楊智傑，著作權濫用與不當使用之研究，公平交易季刊，第20卷第2期，頁1-64(2012年)。
經濟部智慧財產局，中小企業合理保密措施作業程序，頁3(2019年)。
劉孔中，關鍵設施理論限制專利強制授權範圍，公平交易季刊，第15卷第1期，頁25-58(2007年)。
劉國讚、徐偉甄，美國Alice判決後電腦軟體之可專利性的美歐調和，專利師季刊，第23期，頁94-114(2015年)。
賴宏嘉，多元文化下網際網路軟體智慧財產的法建構―以著作權法和專利法為中心，國立成功大學法律學研究所碩士論文(2003年)。

(二)中文專書
賀德芬，文化創新與商業契機，元照出版社，增訂二版，頁32-34 (1994年)。

(三)中文網路資源
李延華，開放Java原始碼是成就Java，還是毀了Java？，載於:https://www.ithome.com.tw/node/28988(最後瀏覽日2021.3.2)。
章忠信，保密約定，著作權筆記，載於http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=8&aid=2477(最後瀏覽日2021.2.21)。
章忠信，著作與著作物，載於:http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=9&aid=2505(最後瀏覽日2021.2.10)。
程倚華，COVID-19衝擊一年，誕生哪些新商業模式？，載於:https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/60384/covid-19(最後瀏覽日2020.12.31)。
經濟部智慧財產局，美國經濟間諜法(重要法條中譯本)，載於: https://www.tipo.gov.tw/tw/cp-10-155712-9ac4c-1.html(最後瀏覽日2021.2.21)。
語言系統簡介，載於:https://web.archive.org/web/20140528050500/http:/www2.nuu.edu.tw/~elearning/nuuopencourse/93open/93004/html/ch7/7-1.htm (最後瀏覽日2021.3.2)。
TRIZ，載於:https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/TRIZ，(最後瀏覽日2021.02.21)。

二、外文參考資料

(一)外文期刊、論文及官方文件
Adam Mossoff, Rethinking the Development of Patents: An Intellectual History, 1550-1800, 52 HASTING L.J. 1255, 1275 (2001).
Ann Defranco,Rebooting Baker v. Selden in Oracle v. Google, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property,Vol8:2 ,217-237 (2021).
Christina Bohannan, IP Misuse as Foreclosure, 96 IOWA L. REV. 475, 478 (2011).
Deli Yang,Software Protection: Copyrightability vs Patentability?,Journal of Intellectual Property Right Vol 17,160-164(2012).
Graham Dutfield & Uma Suthersanen, Global Intelletual Property Law,106(2008).
H.R. REP. NO. 94–1476, at 54 (1976), U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5667.
Herbert Hovenkamp, The Rationalization of Antitrust, Harvard Law Review 116, 933 (2003).
Jasper L. Tran,Software Patents: A One-Year Review of Alice v. CLS Bank, Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, Vol. 97,532,545(2015).
Jon O. Newman, New Lyrics For An Old Melody: The Idea/expression Dichotomy In The Computer Age Archived July 23, 2011
Julie E. Cohen & Mark A. Lemley, Patent Scope and Innovation in the Software Industry, 89 CALIF. L. REV. 1, 7-14 (2001).
Lawrence Lessig, Copyright's First Amendment, 48 UCLA L. Rev. 1057, 1065 (2001).
Leval, Pierre N, Toward a Fair Use Standard, Harvard Law Review ,103 (5): 1105–1136 (1990).
Mccurdy, Gregory V.S., Intellectual Property and Competition: Does the Essential Facilities Doctrine Shed Any New Light ?, E.I.P.R. 2003, 25(10), 472 (2003).
Michael J. Meurer, Vertical Restraints and Intellectual Property Law: Beyond Antitrust, 87 Minnesota Law Review 1871 (2003).
Pamela Samuelson, Allocating Ownership Rights in Computer-Generated Works, 47 U.Pitt.L. Rev. 1185, 1189 (1986).
Pamela Samuelson,Strategies for Discerning the Boundaries of Copyright and Patent,Notre Dame Law Review,Vol.92:4,1493-1538(2017).
Ralph D. Clifford, Intellectual Property in the Era of the Creative Computer Program: Will the True Creator Please Stand Up?, 71 Tulane Law Review 1675, 1682-1683 (1997).
Ralph Jonas, et. al., Copyright and Trademark Misuse, in Aba Section Of Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property Misuse: Licensing And Litigation 165, at 189 (2000).
Tuomas Sorjamaa, I, Author—Authorship and Copyright in the Age of Artificial Intelligence 4,21(2016).
Vincent Chiappetta, Living with Patents: Insights from Patent Misuse, 15 MARQ. INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 1, 20(2011).

(二)外文專書
Amy E. Davis, Paula M. Bagger, Joanna H. Kim & Jeffrey K. Riffer,Guide to Protecting and Litigating Trade Secrets ,14 (2012).
Chisum, Donald S., Craig Allen Nard,Hherbert F. Schwartz, Pauline Newman & F. Scott Kieff, Principles Of Patent Law, Foundation Press (2004).
David Nimmer,Nimmer on Copyright, vol.1, (1999).
Deazley Ronan, On the Origin of the Right to Copy,Hart Publishing,35(2004).
Donald S. Chisum, Chisum on Patents, 5th ed, § 19.01, 19-5 (1996).
Donald S. Chisum, Chisum on Patents: A Treatise on the Law of Patentability, LexisNexis Website ed., Matthew Bender &Company(2010).
Herbert Hovenkamp, Mark D. Janis, and Mark A. Lemley, 1 IP and Antitrust: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law §3.4(2009).
J. Garrido & R. Schlesinger, Principles of Modern Operat¬ing Systems (2008).
J. Thomas McCarthy, Roger E. Schechter, and David J. Franklyn, Mccarthy’S Desk Encyclopedia Of Intellectual Property ,3rd ed(2004).
J.Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy's Desk Encyclopedia of Intellectual Property,3nd ed(2004).
James Ettinger, Jacquard's Web, Oxford University Press(2007).
Knuth, Donald The Art of Computer Programming, Volumes 1-4A Boxed Set. Third Edition (2011).
Ladas, Stephen Pericles. Patents, Trademarks, and Related Rights: National and International Protection, Volume 1. Harvard University Press. (1975).
Melville B. Nimmer and David Nimmer, Nimmer On Copyright 13-09(2008).
Paul Goldstein, Goldstein On Copyright, Volume 1, Aspen Publishers(2008).
Raymond J. Dowd, Copyright Litigation Handbook 2nd ed §13:27 (2009).
Rogers, Jr, Hartley. Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability. The MIT Press.(1987).

(三)美國法院判決
ABB Turbo Systems AG v. Turbousa, Inc. 774 F.3d 979 ,2014 WL 7156709(Fed Cir. 2014).
Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc., 948 F.2d 536,544(9th Cir. 1991).
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 ,134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Alloc v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1371–72 (Fed.Cir.2003); 535 U.S. 722, 122 S. Ct. 1831, 152 L. Ed. 2d 944 (2002).
Altera Corporation v. Clear Logic, Inc., 424 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2005).
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir.1983).
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1443 n. 11 (9th Cir.1994).
Atari Games Corp. v. Oman, 888 F.2d 878, 886 (D.C.Cir.1989).
AvidAir Helicopter Supply, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce Corp., 663 F.3d 966, 2011 WL 6155037(8th Cir. 2011).
Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879).
Berkheimer v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 224 F. Supp. 3d 644 (N.D. Ill. 2016).
Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,881 F.3d 1360(Fed. Cir. 2018).
Berkheimer v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2015 WL 4999954, at *9–10 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 21, 2015).
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 177 L.Ed.2d 792 (2010).
Bloomer v. McQuewan et al., 55 U.S. (14 How.) 539 (1853).
C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157 F.3d. 1340, 1372 (Fed. Cir.1998).
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 590 (1994).
Clayton v. Stone & Hall, 5 F. Cas. 999, (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1829)(No.2,872).
CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp., 685 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir.2012), vacated, 484 F. App’x 559 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp., 768 F. Supp. 2d 221 (D.D.C. 2011).
CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp., No. 2011-1301 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir.1992).
Covad Communications Co. v. Bellsouth Corp., 314 F.3d 1282,1287 (11th Cir. 2002).
Denied, Lipcon v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 525 U.S. 1093 (1999).
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).
E.I. duPont deNemours & Co. v. Christopher (5th Cir. 1970).
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Feist Publications. v. Rural Tel. Serv., 499 U.S. 340, 345(1991)
Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com LLC et al., Case No. 17-571 (2019).
Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.,593 U.S.____(2021).
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972).
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67, 93 S.Ct. 253, 34 L.Ed.2d 273(1972).
Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises , 471 U.S. 539, 560, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985).
Impression Prods. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc.,137 S. Ct. 1535(2017).
In Re Kuriappan P. Alappat, Edward E. Averill and James G. Larsen, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig.,823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Infinity Broad. Corp. v. Kirkwood, 150 F.3d 104, 108 n.2 (2d Cir. 1998).
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 & n.9 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
John G. Danielson, Inc. v. Winchester–Conant Props., Inc., 322 F.3d 26, 43 (1st Cir.2003).
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013).
Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990).
LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 818 (1st Cir.1995), aff'd 516 U.S. 233, 116 S.Ct. 804, 133 L.Ed.2d 610 (1996).
Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 818 (1st Cir.1995).
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,566 U.S.,132 S.Ct. 1289, 1303, 182 L.Ed.2d 321(2012).
MCI Communications Corp. v. AT&T Co., 708 F. 2d 1080, 1132-33 (7th Cir, 1983).
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95, 131 S.Ct. 2238, 180 L.Ed.2d 131 (2011).
Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger, 314 U.S. 488(1942).
Möschel in Immenga/Mestmäcker, GWB § 19 Rdnr. 180 (3 Aufl, 2001).
Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., U.S., 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2125, 189 L.Ed.2d 37 (2014).
NEC Corp. v. Intel Corp.,10 USPQ2d 1177, 1188 (N.D. Cal. 1989).
Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc. 750 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., No. C 10-03561, 2016 WL 5393938 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2016).
Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 872 F. Supp. 2d 974(2012)
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google LLC., 886 F. 3d 1179 (2018).
Paladin Associates, Inc. v. Montana Power Co., 328 F.3d 1145,1163 (9th Cir. 2003).
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1164 n.8 (9th Cir.2007).
Practice Management Information Corporation v. American Medical Association, 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997).
Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, 99 F.3d 1381(6th Cir. 1996).
Sega Enters., Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1524 n. 7 (9th Cir.1992).
Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix, Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir.2000).
Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 113 S. Ct. 884, 890-91 (1993).
State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Twin Laboratories, Inc., Appellant, v. Weider Health & Fitness, a Corporation, I, Bruteenterprises, Inc., Appellees, 900 F.2d 566,570 (2d Cir. 1990).
United States v. Lowe’s, Inc., 371 U.S. 38, at 50 (1962).
Video Pipeline, Inc. v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc., 342 F.3d 191 (3rd Cir. 2003).
Virginia Panel Corp. v. MAC Panel Co., 133 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir.1997).
Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253,1258(Fed. Cir. 2017).
Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172, 177 (1965).
Wall Data, Inc. v. L.A. Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't,. 447 F.3d 769,778(9th Cir. 2006).
Warner Bros. and J. K. Rowling v. RDR Books, 575 F. Supp. 2d 513 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
Whelan Associates, Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc., 797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir.1986).

(四)外文網路資源
Alexander S. Gillis, internet of things (IoT) at https://internetofthingsagenda.techtarget.com/definition/Internet-of-Things-IoT(last visited 12/21/2020).
Andrew Harrer, Google’s Clash With Oracle, PTAB Judges: What’s on Tap for IP in 2021, at https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/googles-clash-with-oracle-ptab-judges-whats-on-tap-for-ip-in-2021(last visited 02/21/2021).
Big US tech companies face major patent losses in the post Alice world, IAM research reveals,at https://www.iam-media.com/law-policy/big-us-tech-companies-face-major-patent-losses-post-alice-world-iam-research-reveals(last visited 03/22/2021).
Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.),at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (last visited 03/22/2021).
Copyright Basics, Circular 1, at https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf(last visited 03/22/2021).
Duration of Copyright, at https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf (last visited 03/22/2021).
Josh Landau,Iancu’s First Hearing Answers Questions Leaves More Open, at https://www.patentprogress.org/2018/04/19/iancus-first-hearing-answers-questions-leaves-more-open/(last visited 02/21/2021).
Lecture on Discoveries and Inventions, at http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/discoveries.htm(last visited 03/22/2021).
No. 18-956, Google LLC, Petitioner v. Oracle America, Inc. at https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-956.html(last visited 02/21/2021).
October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf(last visited 03/22/2021).
Preliminary Examination Instructions for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility in view of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank , at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-announcements/preliminary-examination-instructions-determining-subject-matter(last visited 03/22/2021)
Reliance on Common Knowledge in the Art or "Well Known" Prior Art,at https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/e8r9#/e8r9/d0e210752.html (last visited 03/22/2021).
Stephen Carlisle,Mickey's Headed to the Public Domain! But Will He Go Quietly?,at http://copyright.nova.edu/mickey-public-domain/(last visited 03/22/2021).
Technology Quarterly The ECONOMIST, Stalking Trolls, at https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2014/03/06/stalking-trolls (last visited 03/22/2021).
Timothy B. Lee, Will the Supreme Court save us from software patents?, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/02/26/will-the-supreme-court-save-us-from-software-patents/(last visited 03/22/2021).
Tucker Higgins,Justices wary of upending tech industry in Google v. Oracle Supreme Court fight Supreme Court hears Google v. Oracle software copyright case, at https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/07/supreme-court-hears-google-v-oracle-software-copyright-case.html(last visited 03/22/2021).
U.S. Copyright Office. U.S. Copyright Office - Certain Unpublished, Unregistered Works Enter Public Domain, at https://www.copyright.gov/pr/pdomain.html(last visited 03/22/2021).
Update on USPTO's Implementation of 'Alice v. CLS Bank', at https://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/update_on_uspto_s_implementation(last visited 03/22/2021).
What’s Reasonable?Protecting and Enforcing Trade Secrets in the Digital Age, at https://www.foley.com/files/uploads/AIPLA%20Article%20on%20DTSA%20and%20Reasonable%20Efforts%20to%20Protect%20Trade%20Secrets%2048.pdf (last visited 02/21/2021).
Works Made for Hire, at https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ30.pdf(last visited 03/22/2021).