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​ 

June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review
Read More
June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
Read More
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition
Read More