Citation and metadata
Recommended citation
Andreas Wiebe, Interoperabilität von Software Art. 6 der Computerprogramm-Richtlinie aus heutiger Sicht, 2 (2011) JIPITEC 89 para 1.
Download Citation
Endnote
%0 Journal Article %T Interoperabilität von Software Art. 6 der Computerprogramm-Richtlinie aus heutiger Sicht %A Wiebe, Andreas %J JIPITEC %D 2011 %V 2 %N 2 %@ 2190-3387 %F wiebe2011 %X This article reviews Article 6 of the Software Directive and discusses the need for a revision. Beyond clarification of the scope of the very limited provision on reverse engineering, it seems that the introduction of the clause into copyright was unfortunate. The indirect protection of ideas by prohibiting reverse engineering is foreign to the copyright concept. Permitting reverse engineering altogether would promote research and development and further other goals like ICT security. Innovation would not be retarded, which is the reason why US trade secret law permits reverse engineering based also on economic arguments. The notions of compatibility Article 6 tries to address are better dealt with by Competition Law, which was demonstrated by the Microsoft Decision of the European Court in 2007. %L 340 %K competition law %K copyright limitation %K decompilation %K interfaces %K interoperability %K know-how %K protection of ideas %K research %K reverse engineering %U http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-30812 %P 89-96Download
Bibtex
@Article{wiebe2011, author = "Wiebe, Andreas", title = "Interoperabilit{\"a}t von Software Art. 6 der Computerprogramm-Richtlinie aus heutiger Sicht", journal = "JIPITEC", year = "2011", volume = "2", number = "2", pages = "89--96", keywords = "competition law; copyright limitation; decompilation; interfaces; interoperability; know-how; protection of ideas; research; reverse engineering", abstract = "This article reviews Article 6 of the Software Directive and discusses the need for a revision. Beyond clarification of the scope of the very limited provision on reverse engineering, it seems that the introduction of the clause into copyright was unfortunate. The indirect protection of ideas by prohibiting reverse engineering is foreign to the copyright concept. Permitting reverse engineering altogether would promote research and development and further other goals like ICT security. Innovation would not be retarded, which is the reason why US trade secret law permits reverse engineering based also on economic arguments. The notions of compatibility Article 6 tries to address are better dealt with by Competition Law, which was demonstrated by the Microsoft Decision of the European Court in 2007.", issn = "2190-3387", url = "http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-30812" }Download
RIS
TY - JOUR AU - Wiebe, Andreas PY - 2011 DA - 2011// TI - Interoperabilität von Software Art. 6 der Computerprogramm-Richtlinie aus heutiger Sicht JO - JIPITEC SP - 89 EP - 96 VL - 2 IS - 2 KW - competition law KW - copyright limitation KW - decompilation KW - interfaces KW - interoperability KW - know-how KW - protection of ideas KW - research KW - reverse engineering AB - This article reviews Article 6 of the Software Directive and discusses the need for a revision. Beyond clarification of the scope of the very limited provision on reverse engineering, it seems that the introduction of the clause into copyright was unfortunate. The indirect protection of ideas by prohibiting reverse engineering is foreign to the copyright concept. Permitting reverse engineering altogether would promote research and development and further other goals like ICT security. Innovation would not be retarded, which is the reason why US trade secret law permits reverse engineering based also on economic arguments. The notions of compatibility Article 6 tries to address are better dealt with by Competition Law, which was demonstrated by the Microsoft Decision of the European Court in 2007. SN - 2190-3387 UR - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-30812 ID - wiebe2011 ER -Download
Wordbib
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <b:Sources SelectedStyle="" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" > <b:Source> <b:Tag>wiebe2011</b:Tag> <b:SourceType>ArticleInAPeriodical</b:SourceType> <b:Year>2011</b:Year> <b:PeriodicalTitle>JIPITEC</b:PeriodicalTitle> <b:Volume>2</b:Volume> <b:Issue>2</b:Issue> <b:Url>http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-30812</b:Url> <b:Pages>89-96</b:Pages> <b:Author> <b:Author><b:NameList> <b:Person><b:Last>Wiebe</b:Last><b:First>Andreas</b:First></b:Person> </b:NameList></b:Author> </b:Author> <b:Title>Interoperabilität von Software Art. 6 der Computerprogramm-Richtlinie aus heutiger Sicht</b:Title> <b:Comments>This article reviews Article 6 of the Software Directive and discusses the need for a revision. Beyond clarification of the scope of the very limited provision on reverse engineering, it seems that the introduction of the clause into copyright was unfortunate. The indirect protection of ideas by prohibiting reverse engineering is foreign to the copyright concept. Permitting reverse engineering altogether would promote research and development and further other goals like ICT security. Innovation would not be retarded, which is the reason why US trade secret law permits reverse engineering based also on economic arguments. The notions of compatibility Article 6 tries to address are better dealt with by Competition Law, which was demonstrated by the Microsoft Decision of the European Court in 2007.</b:Comments> </b:Source> </b:Sources>Download
ISI
PT Journal AU Wiebe, A TI Interoperabilität von Software Art. 6 der Computerprogramm-Richtlinie aus heutiger Sicht SO JIPITEC PY 2011 BP 89 EP 96 VL 2 IS 2 DE competition law; copyright limitation; decompilation; interfaces; interoperability; know-how; protection of ideas; research; reverse engineering AB This article reviews Article 6 of the Software Directive and discusses the need for a revision. Beyond clarification of the scope of the very limited provision on reverse engineering, it seems that the introduction of the clause into copyright was unfortunate. The indirect protection of ideas by prohibiting reverse engineering is foreign to the copyright concept. Permitting reverse engineering altogether would promote research and development and further other goals like ICT security. Innovation would not be retarded, which is the reason why US trade secret law permits reverse engineering based also on economic arguments. The notions of compatibility Article 6 tries to address are better dealt with by Competition Law, which was demonstrated by the Microsoft Decision of the European Court in 2007. ERDownload
Mods
<mods> <titleInfo> <title>Interoperabilität von Software Art. 6 der Computerprogramm-Richtlinie aus heutiger Sicht</title> </titleInfo> <name type="personal"> <namePart type="family">Wiebe</namePart> <namePart type="given">Andreas</namePart> </name> <abstract>This article reviews Article 6 of the Software Directive and discusses the need for a revision. Beyond clarification of the scope of the very limited provision on reverse engineering, it seems that the introduction of the clause into copyright was unfortunate. The indirect protection of ideas by prohibiting reverse engineering is foreign to the copyright concept. Permitting reverse engineering altogether would promote research and development and further other goals like ICT security. Innovation would not be retarded, which is the reason why US trade secret law permits reverse engineering based also on economic arguments. The notions of compatibility Article 6 tries to address are better dealt with by Competition Law, which was demonstrated by the Microsoft Decision of the European Court in 2007.</abstract> <subject> <topic>competition law</topic> <topic>copyright limitation</topic> <topic>decompilation</topic> <topic>interfaces</topic> <topic>interoperability</topic> <topic>know-how</topic> <topic>protection of ideas</topic> <topic>research</topic> <topic>reverse engineering</topic> </subject> <classification authority="ddc">340</classification> <relatedItem type="host"> <genre authority="marcgt">periodical</genre> <genre>academic journal</genre> <titleInfo> <title>JIPITEC</title> </titleInfo> <part> <detail type="volume"> <number>2</number> </detail> <detail type="issue"> <number>2</number> </detail> <date>2011</date> <extent unit="page"> <start>89</start> <end>96</end> </extent> </part> </relatedItem> <identifier type="issn">2190-3387</identifier> <identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:0009-29-30812</identifier> <identifier type="uri">http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-30812</identifier> <identifier type="citekey">wiebe2011</identifier> </mods>Download
Full Metadata
Bibliographic Citation | Journal of intellectual property, information technology and electronic commerce law 2 (2011) 2 |
---|---|
Title |
Interoperabilität von Software Art. 6 der Computerprogramm-Richtlinie aus heutiger Sicht (ger) |
Author | Andreas Wiebe |
Language | ger |
Abstract | This article reviews Article 6 of the Software Directive and discusses the need for a revision. Beyond clarification of the scope of the very limited provision on reverse engineering, it seems that the introduction of the clause into copyright was unfortunate. The indirect protection of ideas by prohibiting reverse engineering is foreign to the copyright concept. Permitting reverse engineering altogether would promote research and development and further other goals like ICT security. Innovation would not be retarded, which is the reason why US trade secret law permits reverse engineering based also on economic arguments. The notions of compatibility Article 6 tries to address are better dealt with by Competition Law, which was demonstrated by the Microsoft Decision of the European Court in 2007. |
Subject | competition law, copyright limitation, decompilation, interfaces, interoperability, know-how, protection of ideas, research, reverse engineering |
DDC | 340 |
Rights | DPPL |
URN: | urn:nbn:de:0009-29-30812 |