我国《著作权法》等为计算机软件提供法律保护,但在实际应用中仍存不足。主要问题包括:软件组成要素的保护范围不明确;“实质性相似加接触”规则在侵权判定中的适用性争议以及侵权救济途径的时效性和便利性不足。计算机软件的复杂性对“思想与表达二分法”提出挑战,算法、数据结构等通常被归类为“思想”排除在保护范围之外,但软件程序的结构、顺序和组织因体现“独创性表达”,可纳入保护范畴。域外实践中,“AFC判断法”通过抽象、过滤和比较,更合理地界定了软件著作权保护范围,弥补了测试方法不足。结合我国实际,建议从以下方面完善法律框架:明确软件独创性保护范围,优化侵权认定规则,借鉴国际先进方法以提高司法适用性。同时,加强软件著作权登记与保护机制建设,以提升救济的效率与公信力。China’s Copyright Law and other laws provide legal protection for computer software, but there are still shortcomings in practical applications. The main issues include: unclear protection scope of software components;The controversy over the applicability of the “substantial similarity plus contact” rule in software infringement determination and the insufficient timeliness and convenience of infringement relief channels. The complexity of computer software challenges the dichotomy between ideas and expressions. Algorithms, data structures, etc. are usually classified as “ideas” and excluded from protection, but the structure, sequence, and organization of software programs can be included in protection due to their expression of “originality”. In extraterritorial practice, the “AFC Judgment Method” has defined the scope of software copyright protection more reasonably through abstraction, filtering, and comparison, making up for the shortcomings of similarity testing methods. Based on the actual situation in our country, it is suggested to improve the legal fra
近年来,我国计算机软件著作权侵权案件呈现出数量上升的趋势,特别是在办公类软件和游戏软件领域,涉外案件的比例较高,这不仅反映了软件产业国际化的加速,同时也凸显了跨国公司在知识产权保护上的重视程度。从法律角度来看,“接触加实质性相似”的原则虽然被广泛采用,但在具体应用中如何准确界定“实质性相似”却面临挑战。《计算机软件保护条例》第二十九条有关表达方式有限性的规定,在实践中给法官带来了不小的困扰。此外,举证责任分配不合理增加了权利人的诉讼难度,合理使用的边界模糊可能导致教育机构等非营利组织误入侵权雷区,针对上述问题,本文提出了多项对策建议以改变目前存在的不足与缺陷。In recent years, the number of computer software copyright infringement cases in China has shown a rising trend, especially in the field of office software and game software, the proportion of foreign cases is relatively high, which not only reflects the acceleration of the internationalization of the software industry, but also highlights the importance of multinational companies in the protection of intellectual property rights. From a legal point of view, although the principle of “contact plus substantial similarity” is widely adopted, it faces challenges to accurately define “substantial similarity” in specific application. Article 29 of the Regulations on the Protection of Computer Software on the limited way of expression has brought a lot of trouble to the judges in practice. In addition, the unreasonable distribution of the burden of proof increases the litigation difficulty of the right holder, and the blurred boundary of reasonable use may lead to non-profit organizations such as educational institutions to stray into the infringement minefield. In view of the above problems, this paper puts forward a number of countermeasures and suggestions to change the existing deficiencies and def
