Journal of Legal Research

Journal of Legal Research

The Law Governing Software Disputes with an Approach to the WIPO Instruments

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Moosa Akefi Ghaziani 1
Vahid Akefi Ghaziani 2
1 Assistant Professor, Department of International Law, Faculty of Social Sciences, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Pre-doctoral Student at the International University College of Turin, Italy; Attorney at law.
10.48300/jlr.2022.300747.1746
Abstract
Legal certainty in all aspects of a contract from start to conclusion is one of the key factors in welcoming people to international trade. One of these important aspects is determining the applicable law in the event of a dispute between the parties in contractual and non-contractual litigation that are related to the basic contract. the contractual disputes are like lawsuits for termination, the obligation to repair, the obligation to provide replacement of goods, etc., and among the non-contractual lawsuits are the lawsuits for violation, validity or ownership of the basic right. When these claims are made in the field of intellectual property, governments, because of their territorial rules, recognize the principle of territorial jurisdiction over such claims and refuse to apply the law of other countries on intellectual property. This paper examines the WIPO documents, in particular the two documents proposed by the American Law Institute and the Max Planck Institute regarding the law governing these claims. Finally, the solution is that in order to achieve legal certainty in determining the law governing intellectual property, states can end the conflict of laws by authenticating the party's autonomy. So, this is how countries can help the development of international trade and the predictability of claims in this area. Also, by comparing the two proposed documents, some suggestions have been made regarding the maximum certainty of the Max Planck draft.
Keywords
Software
Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights
WIPO Instruments
Draft of Max Planck Institute
Choice of Governing Law
  1. Elsan, Mustafa. (2019). Virtual Space Law, 14th edition, Tehran, Iran, Shahr Danesh Institute of Legal Studies and Researches. (In Persian)
  2. Emami, Asadullah. (2016). Intellectual property rights, first volume, third edition, Tehran, Iran, Mizan Publications. (In Persian)
  3. Aqaei, Bahman. (1378). Bahman Legal Dictionary, first edition, Tehran, Iran, Ganj Danesh. (In Persian)
  4. John O Hanold, John O. (2014). Uniform rights for the international sale of goods according to the 1980 United Nations Convention, translated by Homayoun Mafi, second edition, Tehran, Iran, Majd Publications.
  5. Seljuqi, Mahmoud. (1386). International private law, second volume, sixth edition, Tehran, Iran, Mizan Publications. (In Persian)
  6. Zarkalam, Sattar, Mohouri, Mohammad Hassan. (2014). Legal protections for software creators, first edition, Tehran, Iran, Samit Publications. (In Persian)
  7. Adel, Morteza. (2017). Governing Law in International Intellectual Property Litigation, Journal of International Law, No. 59/Autumn Winter, 345-375. (In Persian)

 

  1. Amendment of copy right act 1976 (1980)
  2. Barrett, R. 2005. Management, Labour Process and Software Development, Routledge Taylor & Francis e-Library.
  3. Beloit Canada Ltd. v. Valmet Oy, (1988) 82 N.R. 235 (FCA)
  4. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
  5. Copy Right Act 1957
  6. Def Lepp Music and others v. Stuart-Brown and others, Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases, Volume 103, Issue 11, 1986, Pages 273–278, https://doi.org/10.1093/rpc/1986rpc273
  7. Diedrich, F. 2002. The CISG and Computer Software Revisited Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration, Supplement.
  8. Dinwoodie G., Dreyfuss, R., Kur, A. 2010. THE LAW APPLICABLE TO SECONDARY LIABILITY IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CASES, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLITICS, 42, 201-236.
  9. Drexl, J. 2005. Studies in Industrial Property and Copyright Law, Vol. 24. Hart Publishing, Oxford, UK.
  10. Dole Refrigerating Products Ltd. v. The Canadian Ice Machine Co. et al. (1957), 17 Fox Pat. C. 125 (Ex. Ct.)
  11. Freed, R. 1991. The birth, life, and death of computer law - part II, The Computer Law and Security Review. 7(4), 155-160.
  12. Heath, C., Petit, L. 2005. Patent Enforcement Worldwide, Hart Publishing, Oxford.
  13. Intellectual Property: Principles Governing Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, and Judgmentsin Transnational Disputes (American Law Institute).
  14. Kono, T.(Editor) Beaumont, P. (Series Editor). 2012. Intellectual Property and Private International Law: Comparative Perspectives, Hart Publishing,
  15. Lipstein, K. 2005. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: PARALLEL CHOICE OF LAW RULES, Cambridge Law Journal, 64(3), November 2005, 593–613. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197305006975
  16. Lopez, V. V. (Senior Legal Counsellor). 2007. International IP Protection of Software: History, Purpose and Challenges, Copyright E-Commerce Technology and Management Division, WIPO.
  17. Matulionyte, R. 2011. Law Applicable to Copyright Infringements in the ALI and CLIP Proposals, Presentation on 28-29 January 2011, Tokyo, 216-226.
  18. Matulionyte, R. 2013. CALLING FOR PARTY AUTONOMY IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INFRINGEMENT CASES, Journal of Private International Law, 9(1), 77-99.
  19. 2 Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007) ( Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp.: 550 U.S. 437 (2007): Justia US Supreme Court Center)
  20. National Football League v. PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture, 211 F.3d 10 (2nd Cir. 2000) ( National Football League, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Primetime 24 Joint Venture, Defendant-appellant, 211 F.3d 10 (2d Cir. 2000) :: Justia
  21. Ogunranti, A. 2017. THE SCOPE OF PARTY AUTONOMY IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS: A NEW DAWN? Master thesis, Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia.
  22. REGULATION (EC) No 864/2007 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II)
  23. Smith, M. A., Cousté, M., Hield, T., Jarvis, R., Kochupillai, M., Leon, B., Rasser, J.C., Sakamoto, M., Shaughnessy, A., Branch, J. 2006. ARBITRATION OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND VALIDITY ISSUES WORLDWIDE, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 19(2), 299-357.
  24. The European Max PlanckGroup on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (CLIP)
  25. Trimble, M. 2019. The Territorial Discrepancy Between Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Claims and Remedies, University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law, 501-552
  26. Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act
  27. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1990. Computer Software and intellectual Property--Background Paper, OTA-BP-CIT-61, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  28. WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) 19 
Journal of Legal Research
Volume 24, Issue 61
Spring 2025
Pages 237-262