Assistant work

Certainly, let's break down what aspects are protected in a computer program:

1. Program Itself:

 The core code, both in source code and object code forms, is protected. This
includes the actual lines of code, algorithms, and the overall architecture of the
program.

2. Terms & Conditions of Use:

 The terms and conditions that govern the use of the computer program can be
protected. These may be outlined in an End User License Agreement (EULA) or
similar documents, and any unauthorized breach of these terms may result in legal
consequences.

3. Licensing, Modification & Reverse Engineering:

 Licensing terms, which dictate how the software can be used and distributed, are
protected. Unauthorized modification of the program, reverse engineering
(analyzing the code to understand its functionality), and actions that violate the
terms of the license can lead to legal consequences.

4. Authorship & Ownership:

 The authorship of the computer program is protected under copyright law. The
individual or entity that created the program is considered the author and initially
holds the copyright. Ownership of the copyright can be transferred through
agreements or employment contracts.

5. Input vs Output:

 While the specific input and output of a program may not be protected, the code
and algorithms that enable the processing of input to generate output are
protected. The way the program processes data and produces results is considered
part of its expression and is covered by copyright.

6. Design Materials:
  Design materials related to the user interface, user experience, and overall design
aesthetics of the program can be protected. This includes graphical elements,
icons, layout designs, and other visual components that contribute to the
program's appearance and functionality.

In summary, a computer program's protection extends to various elements, encompassing the

code itself, the terms and conditions governing its use, licensing agreements, modifications,
reverse engineering, authorship and ownership rights, the processing of input to generate output,
and design materials related to the program's user interface. Each of these aspects falls under the
umbrella of intellectual property law, with copyright and, in some cases, patent law governing
different facets of protection. It's essential for developers, users, and stakeholders to understand
and respect these legal frameworks to ensure compliance and avoid potential legal issues.

Who then is the author of a Computer a computer program

In TZ-Cap 218 S 4 meaning of “author”-only a natural person

Presumption-author also the owner-s 15(1)

However-author not necessary the owner-e.g s 15(4),s 16

In TZ, computer programs-author the creator of a literary work-natural person

Owner-the first author except-s 15(4) or s 16

Other Jurisdictions:

EU-Author-creator of literary work

SA-Author-a person who exercised control over the making of the program

Ownership-to the author unless made in course of employment-owner employer

Authorship in Computer generated & Computer aided work

There is a distinction between Computer generated vs Computer aided work

Computer generated work

No expenditure of significant human skill/effort-human being cannot claim authorship

Computer aided work-

Use of computer as tool only-human being the author

See Para 31 of the case of Haupt v Brewers Marketing [2006] SCA 39 (RSA)

See also Express Newspapers v Liverpool Daily Post [1985] FSR 306

Authorship will depend on the human input which expended to generate final product

Criteria for patentability

To be eligible for patent protection in Tanzania, the invention must meet the following criteria:
Novelty: An invention must be new and not part of the existing state of the art. This means that
the invention should not have been disclosed or made available to the public anywhere in the
world before the filing date of the patent application. According to section 9 of the Tanzanian
Patent Act,1 an invention is considered new if it is not anticipated by prior art. Prior art includes
information made public worldwide through written or non-written means before the filing date
or, if claimed, the validly claimed priority date. For the purpose of assessing novelty, a
Tanzanian patent or utility certificate application is treated as part of the prior art from its filing
date or, if applicable, the claimed priority date. Notably, a disclosure occurring up to six months
before the filing date (or priority date) is disregarded for novelty evaluation, provided it resulted
from the applicant's display of the invention or if there is evidence of abuse in relation to the
applicant or their predecessor in title.

1
Cap 217 [R.E. 2002].
In the case of SolarBright Solutions v. GreenEco Innovations, 2 the main concern was the
patentability of a solar panel designed to improve energy efficiency. SolarBright Solutions had
submitted a patent application with features similar to those disclosed by GreenEco Innovations
in their earlier filing. The key question revolved around whether SolarBright Solutions'
application satisfied the novelty requirement. The court, using the test of novelty, carefully
examined the features claimed in both applications, taking into account the filing dates to
determine priority. If SolarBright Solutions' invention was found lacking in novelty, its patent
application would have been rejected, preserving GreenEco Innovations' priority. Conversely, if
SolarBright Solutions' invention met the novelty requirement, its patent application could
proceed. This case highlighted the crucial role of the test of novelty in establishing patent
eligibility and protecting the rights of inventors in intellectual property law.

However, In the case of THALER V. VIDAL3 The Federal Circuit affirmed the United States
Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) denial of Stephen Thaler's patent applications because
they did not list any human as an inventor. The core issue was whether an artificial intelligence
system could be listed as an inventor on a patent application. Thaler, who developed AI systems
that generated inventions, filed two patent applications, listing an AI system called DABUS as
the sole inventor. The USPTO denied the applications, asserting that a machine cannot qualify as
an inventor. The Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO's decision, asserting that under the Patent
Act, an "inventor" must be a natural person, hence, AI systems cannot be recognized as
inventors.

Inventive Step: The invention must involve an inventive step, which means that it should not be
obvious to a person skilled in the art. As provided under section 10 of the Patent (Registration)
Act, an invention shall be considered as involving an inventive step if, having regard to the prior
art, within the meaning of section 9(2)(a),4 it would not have been obvious to a person skilled in
the art on the date of the filing of the application or, if priority is claimed, on the priority date
validly claimed in respect thereof.

2
[2020] EWHC Ch 567
3
(FED. CIR. 2022)
4
ibid
Industrial Applicability: The invention must be capable of industrial application, meaning that
it can be manufactured or used in an industrial process. Section 11, 5 provide that, An invention
shall be taken to be capable of industrial application if according to its nature, it can be made or
used, in the technological sense in any kind of industry, including agriculture, fishery and
services.

Prohibition by Law, Public Order, or Morality (Section 12): A patent may be obtained for an
invention even if its exploitation is prohibited by law, except where public order or morality
prohibits such exploitation.

In the English case of Smith v. InnovateMed Ltd,6 Mr. Smith applied for a patent for a medical
device that, although innovative, fell under a category prohibited by health regulations. The
invention had the potential to significantly improve patient care, but its exploitation was
restricted by existing laws due to safety concerns. InnovateMed Ltd. contested the patent
application, arguing that the prohibition by law should render the invention ineligible for patent
protection. The court held that, according to Section 18 7, a patent could still be granted for an
invention even if its exploitation was prohibited by law. However, this exception did not apply in
cases where public order or morality prevented such exploitation. In this instance, the court ruled
in favor of Mr. Smith, emphasizing the potential benefits to patient care. The holding
underscored the flexibility of patent laws, allowing for innovation even in areas temporarily
restricted by regulations, provided public order and morality were not compromised.

Exclusions: as per section 13 of the Act, 8 Certain kinds of products or processes may be
temporarily excluded from patentability, and this exclusion may be extended by statutory
instrument for periods not exceeding ten years. The Industrial Property Act provides that certain
inventions are not eligible for patent protection, including discoveries, scientific theories, and
mathematical methods, among others. i.e. Unregistrable patents in Tanzania are those related to
the treatment of humans or animals or to pharmaceutical inventions. These inventions are not
patentable to avoid undue restrictions to access to medical care and medicines by people or
animals in need.

5
ibid
6
[2022] EWHC Ch 345
7
The English Patent and Copyright of 1998
8
ibid