Patent protection only covers part of a computer program. Only the technical invention resulting from the software is taken into account by this process. On the other hand, copyright protects the software as a whole by integrating the intellectual contribution of the author and his personal investments in the development of the program. But, whether it comes under patent or copyright, protecting the intellectual property of software remains a real obstacle course and a significant financial investment. In such a context, it is difficult for startuppers to worry about protecting their software, as they lack the time and money for this type of operation. However, the risk of having your software stolen is very real. And on this ground, two processes exist: piracy and theft of intellectual property.
Even the biggest companies have had their codes copied or stolen
An example is the case of the publication of several Sega Genesis games by the video game publisher Accolade, which, after disassembling the software for the Genesis video game console, had published the games without being licensed by Sega. The US District Court in California had ruled in favor of Sega, forcing Accolade to recall all of their Genesis games. But, not happy with this decision, Accolade appealed believing that their reverse engineering was fair. The district court order agreed with him and ruled that Accolade’s use of reverse engineering to release Genesis titles was protected by fair use and that its alleged infringement of Sega trademarks was Sega’s fault.
Another case tried in court: that of Sony Computer Entertainment, which sued Connectix Corp, accusing it of having stolen an essential component of their system called BIOS. Again the court ruling, ruled that copying copyrighted BIOS software while developing emulation software does not constitute copyright infringement, but is covered by copyright law. fair use. The court ruled that Sony’s PlayStation brand had not been tarnished by the sale by Connectix Corp. of its emulation software, the Virtual Game Station.
Reverse engineering and code theft
These two cases had an impact going beyond the simple framework of video games to encompass the entire software industry: they effectively allowed the legalization of reverse engineering on the other side of the Atlantic. In France, reverse engineering is also authorized, under certain conditions.
Although these two examples relate to big names in software, the risk of intellectual property theft can fall on all publishers, regardless of their size. However, few of them, especially young entrepreneurs, have legal skills and financial investments commensurate with the procedural steps undertaken in the context of these two cases. This is why publishers have every interest in using technical means to protect their software.
Today, this type of theft is practiced according to two possibilities. While the first, reverse engineering, uses software called debuggers or disassemblers to reconstruct the programming logic of an application to recreate it identically, the second occurs when an editor relies on a industry to market its program. Forced to provide its source code to the partner, the publisher then exposes itself to the theft of its intellectual property.
However, today few startuppers are aware of these risks. According to a survey by researchers from the Leibniz University of Hanover, 58% of developers questioned think that reverse-engineering is a real threat, while only 26% think that their applications can be threatened.
An attitude due to ignorance of this risk. Indeed, if ransomware hacking techniques are known to companies because of the ransom demand, program theft is less so because source code thieves have no interest in making their actions known, their objective being to exploit the software without the knowledge of the owners. Carried out in the shadows, these scams are therefore often ignored by young publishers.
Also, in addition to legal protection, computer techniques exist to protect yourself. Among them, obfuscation, an operation that consists of introducing elements that disrupt a hacker’s analysis. These additions can be the result of lines of code whose usefulness is null or of the modification of the path of execution of the software. Similarly, dynamic protections preventing the proper execution of the software when analysis tools are used, can be applied.
Protecting intellectual property therefore requires the establishment of technological and legal ramparts. If the first is easily deployable, the second requires large financial resources. This is why, at a time when investment funds do not hesitate to support, with millions of euros, the technological and commercial development of a start-up, it would be good if part of this windfall financial be devoted to intellectual protection. Without a system structured around these two levers – technical and legal – startups expose themselves to endangering their business. And, France, to the loss of its innovations!