Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 17 NOVEMBER 2022

"Don't Copy That IP!" Pirated And Counterfeit Software

Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Explore more from Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.

Counterfeiting and especially piracy are sometimes called "victimless crimes."

LuxembourgIntellectual Property
Dennemeyer
Dennemeyer
Author LinkedIn connections

Counterfeiting and especially piracy are sometimes called "victimless crimes." But while pirating or counterfeiting a highly profitable product like software might not be violent or physically injurious, there are certainly victims. And this harm caused can extend far beyond software developers.

Clothing — particularly footwear — holds the regrettable honor of being the most commonly counterfeited product type, with apparel vendors in 2020 losing about $26 billion USD in direct sales due to fakes. But bogus software presents significant risks in our tech-driven world, and we must fully understand the problem to tackle it, upholding the underlying Intellectual Property (IP) in the process. This starts with the distinction between pirated and counterfeit software.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UPC CoA Confirms “gold Standard” For Added Matter In Sibio v Abbott

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court recently issued a decision examining whether omitting an elastomeric sealing member from a patent claim constitutes added matter, applying the EPO's "gold standard" test while emphasizing the importance of functional and structural relationships between features. The ruling provides crucial insight into how the UPC approaches intermediate generalizations and whether its methodology differs from the notoriously strict EPO practice on added subject-matter.
LuxembourgIntellectual Property
HGF Law
HGF Law
Article

G 1/25: When Must The Description Be Adapted To Amended Claims?

The European Patent Office's Enlarged Board of Appeal has issued a landmark decision in G 1/25 "Hydroponics," addressing a fundamental question that has divided practitioners for years: when patent claims are amended during examination, must the description be adapted to match? The ruling establishes that inconsistencies between claims and descriptions only require correction when they result in non-compliance with the European Patent Convention, not merely for achieving formal consistency.
LuxembourgIntellectual Property
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Article

G 1/25: When Must The Description Be Adapted To Amended Claims?

The European Patent Office's Enlarged Board of Appeal has issued a landmark decision in G 1/25 "Hydroponics," addressing a fundamental question that has divided practitioners for years: when patent claims are amended during examination, must the description be adapted to match? The ruling establishes that inconsistencies between claims and descriptions only require correction when they result in non-compliance with the European Patent Convention, not merely for achieving formal consistency.
LuxembourgIntellectual Property
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.