You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

February 20, 2015

Challenges of Protecting Intellectual Property in the Software Industry

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

In the fast-evolving and highly competitive technology industry, software developers and owners should exercise strong vigilance to ensure that their creations are properly guarded within the ambit of intellectual property rights. Protecting software, however, involves complex, interrelated issues that encompass a mix of copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secrets law.

In this article, we will examine what people in the software industry should know to adequately protect their creations and operate their business with fewer hitches.

Software as a Copyrighted Literary Work

Copyright protection applies to computer source code and is not limited to any particular language. The protection is automatic—i.e. no registration is required—but owners can still record their software as a copyrighted work with the Department of Intellectual Property to better prove ownership, should the need arise. The process, known as recordation, is free and uncomplicated.

Newly developed source code can be filed for recordation at any time. Important documents required include a copy of the first five pages and the last five pages of the source code, or a CD containing the relevant software.

Functions and Features of Software

Copyright law does not protect ideas about functions and features of software, nor does it protect functional user interfaces. For this reason, rival companies can develop the same kind of software and will not be considered to have committed copyright infringement, so long as the software has its own source code.

Ideas about software functions and features may, however, be protected under patent law. Currently, software is not patentable in Thailand, but in some countries, including the United States, it is. Thailand may be moving in this direction, as certain hardware or devices programmed with functions that are novel and involve an inventive step would be deemed patentable under Thai law, but these are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Source Code

Normally, after software has been commercially distributed, the source code is kept confidential and is only disclosed in necessary cases. If the source code is kept under appropriate security measures, it may be protectable under trade secret law, which imposes serious penalties on those who intentionally disclose, deprive, or use another party’s trade secrets without that party’s consent.

Copyright Ownership

The copyright of software developed by an employee under an employment contract is owned by the employee, unless agreed otherwise in writing. By contrast, the copyright of software developed under a specially commissioned contract will belong to the commissioning party. However, developers for other parties and their commissioners may agree that the copyright shall be owned by the developers.

License Agreements

If a customer requires a software developer to deliver source code, the parties should make it clear whether the customer wants to own the source code or merely customize or update the software in the future. This is because a software sale agreement or an agreement to assign copyright to the source code is significantly different from a license agreement.

If the parties agree to a software license agreement, under which the source code is required to be disclosed for the purposes of customizing or updating the software, the developer may include a provision under which the customer is obligated to keep the source code confidential.

Software license agreements do not bar copyright owners from granting licenses to other parties. As copyright is alienable, licensable, and divisible, many types of software license agreements exist, for example:

  • Exclusive Licenses: Only the licensee has the right to make use of the software. The licensor is not allowed to make use of it, nor grant any additional licenses.
  • Sole Licenses: Only the licensee is allowed to make use of the software. The licensor agrees to not grant any additional licenses, but retains the right to make use of the software.
  • Nonexclusive Licenses: The copyright owner may grant licenses to several users simultaneously and the licensor can also make use of the software. General software programs and mobile applications are normally licensed non-exclusively.

Copyright can be licensed to multiple users, unless expressly prohibited, such as under exclusive or sole license agreements. If the licensee does not want the copyright owner to grant licenses to other parties, the copyright license agreement must include a clause to this effect.

Registering Software Brands or Logos as Trademarks

Developers should create a brand name or trademark, for the purpose of internal reference, as well as for copyright recordation and licensing. Words or devices used as trademarks must not directly describe the nature or characteristics of the goods or services—otherwise, the trademark will not be registrable. Words or devices used as trademarks should be distinctive and must not be identical or similar to other parties’ registered trademarks.

Granting a software copyright license to a foreign company does not require registration. Many software products, however, bear widely known trademarks. Therefore, in addition to a software copyright license, a copyright owner may have to grant a trademark license to its customer—such as a distributor appointed in a foreign country. In such a case, the trademark should also be registered in that foreign country.

Products and services relating to software change rapidly, and sometimes existing protection may not completely cover all aspects of a new, innovative piece of software. Therefore, developers, government bodies and lawyers should regularly exchange ideas and opinions and keep themselves up-to-date to be able to deal with new problems effectively.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More