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​ 

May 6, 2026
Thailand has introduced new requirements for online social media platforms to verify the identity of paying advertisers before publishing their advertisements. On May 5, 2026, the Electronic Transactions Commission published the Notification on Measures for Prevention of Technology Crime for Online Social Media (No. 2) in the Government Gazette. The notification, which aims to prevent technology crimes such as fraud and scams, takes effect 180 days after publication (i.e., on November 1, 2026). Mandatory Advertiser Identity Verification Online social media service providers must verify the identity of every advertiser before publishing an advertisement. Verification remains valid for up to one year from the most recent verification date. The notification requires social media providers to use either of the following methods when verifying advertisers: Document-based verification: Examine government-issued identity documents (e.g., national ID, passport, or juristic person registration certificate), cross-check the connection between the advertiser and the identity documents (e.g., facial comparison with photo ID), and ensure that the identity documents are verifiable against reliable sources. Digital identity verification: Use an identity verification system with a level of assurance no lower than that prescribed by the Electronic Transactions Commission. Advertiser Data Collection and Retention Service providers must collect and retain certain data—including name, identification number, and contact details—from the start of the advertising service and for a minimum of 90 days after the end of the advertising service relationship. The same requirements apply where there is a third-party payer, such as an ad agency. Implications for Affected Businesses The notification raises two key areas of concern for affected businesses: Social media platforms must implement know-your-advertiser (KYA) onboarding as described above, including document upload and identity matching processes. The 180-day implementation window requires immediate technical and operational planning. The collection and retention of national ID cards, passport copies, and other personal
Read More
April 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,
Read More
April 23, 2026
Vietnam has progressively positioned blockchain as a strategic technology within its broader digital transformation agenda over the past decade. From early policy orientations to more recent legislative developments, the regulatory approach has gradually shifted from high-level recognition to more concrete legal integration. Against this backdrop, a new draft decree regulating activities relating to product and goods identification, authentication, and traceability (the “Draft Decree”) marks a notable turning point. Rather than merely referencing blockchain as a policy priority, the Draft Decree incorporates blockchain directly into a nationwide regulatory system, positioning it as part of the underlying infrastructure for data governance and public administration in relation to the management, verification, and traceability of product-related data. Evolution of Vietnam’s Blockchain Legal Framework: The Draft Decree in Context Vietnam’s blockchain legal framework has developed in several distinct phases. The first phase, beginning around 2019, was characterized by high-level policy recognition in several resolutions of the Party Central Committee. Particularly, blockchain was identified as part of the broader category of digital technologies critical to industrial modernization and participation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These resolutions did not regulate blockchain directly, but established its strategic importance at the national level. The second phase (2023 to 2025) saw the introduction of national strategies and technology policies that more explicitly recognized blockchain as a priority technology. Those policies collectively signaled a clear policy commitment to developing blockchain infrastructure and applications. However, these instruments remained largely at a policy-level and did not establish binding regulatory frameworks. The third phase (from 2025) involves the gradual integration of blockchain into sectoral legislation. Laws such as the Law on Digital Technology Industry (2025), the Law on Personal Data Protection (2025), and the Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation (2025) have introduced concepts such as digital assets, crypto assets, and even specific
Read More
April 21, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has launched a public consultation period on a draft notification setting out criteria for data subject access requests (DSARs). The draft notification addresses practical uncertainties in handling DSARs by introducing standardized procedural requirements for data controllers. The consultation period runs from April 16 to May 15, 2026. The notification will enter into force 30 days from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. Key Features of the Draft Notification The draft notification covers the following key areas: Scope of information subject to access. Data controllers must enable data subjects to access at least the following upon request: (1) personal data collected directly from them; (2) personal data obtained from other sources; and (3) the source of personal data obtained from other sources without consent. Information required under section 23 of the PDPA and information that must be recorded pursuant to section 39 of the PDPA—such as the categories of personal data collected and purposes of processing—must also be made available. Submission channels and formal requirements. Data controllers must provide at least in-person and postal channels for DSARs, while electronic or other channels are optional. Requests may be made either directly by the data subject or through an authorized representative, and must be signed and include sufficient identifying information, a preferred response method, and DSAR details. Identity verification documents (and proof of authority if the request is through a representative) are required, and additional documentation may be requested for verification or communication purposes. Data controllers may use different verification methods for DSARs submitted via electronic or other channels, provided this does not create undue obstacles to the exercise of data subject rights. Verification and response timelines. Data controllers must complete preliminary verification within seven business days of receiving a request. If a
Read More