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

November 20, 2013

Patentability of Computer Programs in Indonesia

Informed Counsel

It has become conventional practice throughout the world for countries with established systems of intellectual property to offer copyright protection for computer programs. Indonesia, for example, provides copyright protection for computer programs for a period of 50 years from the date of first publication.

The general consensus, however, is that copyright protection for computer programs remains weak and inadequate because it protects only the expression in its tangible form of the work, as opposed to its inventiveness. Computer program inventors have therefore sought alternative means to protect their inventions.

Protection through patents has become the most preferred way for inventors to secure IP rights to their computer program inventions. The use of patent protection for this purpose has been fraught with controversy, however, and Indonesia has yet to take a clear stance with respect to the subject matter that is patentable under its Patent Law No. 14 of 2001.

Indonesia’s Patent Law

In Indonesia, computer programs are not explicitly prohibited as patentable subject matter under Article 7 of Indonesia’s Patent Law No. 14 of 2001. However, in a supplemental explanatory section to the Patent Law, it is stated that “Invention does not include: … (4) rules and methods related to computer programs…”

In the midst of this uncertainty and vagueness surrounding Indonesian patent law, many computer program inventions have been successfully filed and patented in Indonesia. Direct claims to computer programs that were granted include, for example, “A computer program written in a computer-readable format, so that processing to manage a wireless network is performed on a computer system, comprising: a management information acquiring step for acquiring management information in the network concerned; and so on.”

The above example of a granted computer program claim in an Indonesian patent corresponds to a granted claim in the corresponding Japanese patent. Notably, however, this computer program claim is excluded from the granted claims of the corresponding U.S. patent and the amended claims of the corresponding European pending application.

In practice, the substantive examination process for computer program patent applications does not differ from that of patent applications in other fields of invention—if the invention is deemed to establish an unobvious difference from its prior art and solve a technical problem, the invention may be granted a patent. The Directorate of Patents allows the claims of the Indonesian patent application to conform to the granted claims of a corresponding foreign patent, in spite of the laws in the other jurisdictions possibly contradicting the current Indonesian law on patenting computer programs.

International Comparisons

The patentability of computer programs varies from country to country. In Thailand, for instance, computer programs are explicitly ineligible to be considered as patentable inventions under Section 9(3) of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979). Likewise, in European Union member states, Article 52(2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) stipulates that programs for computers shall not be regarded as inventions.

By way of an exception, however, Article 52(3) of the EPC states that “Paragraph 2 [of Article 52] shall exclude the patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to therein only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject‑matter or activities as such.” Therefore, if the computer program involves a technical feature that solves a technical problem in a non-obvious way, the invention is patentable.

Within this international context, the current practice of Indonesian Patent Examiners appears to be more advantageous to inventors than the practice in many other jurisdictions, although the chance of a successful patent grant still depends heavily on the grant of a corresponding foreign patent. Inventors of computer programs should seek to take advantage of this favorable system by patenting relevant claims in Indonesia. Indeed, a review of recent filing trends would seem to indicate that inventors are pushing ahead in this space, as there has been a growing trend in the number of overseas patent applications being filed in Indonesia during the period of 2010 to 2012 for inventions related to computer programs.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 14, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Insurance Commission (OIC) has issued guidelines clarifying the boundaries between permissible and prohibited activities for unlicensed individuals—including influencers, bloggers, and content creators—when communicating about insurance products on social media. The Good Practice Guidelines for Persons Not Licensed as Insurance Agents or Brokers Regarding the Dissemination of Insurance Content Through Digital Media B.E. 2569 (2026) took effect on July 24, 2026. Activities Requiring a License The guidelines reserve the following activities for licensed agents and brokers: Soliciting or facilitating insurance contracts. Providing personalized advice on product suitability. Recommending policy cancellation to purchase promoted products. Creating links that facilitate contract formation. Receiving performance-based compensation tied to policies or premiums generated. Importantly, boilerplate disclaimers such as “this is not a recommendation to buy insurance” will not shield individuals from liability if the OIC views the content as personalized advice or solicitation. Permitted Activities Unlicensed persons may present general educational content about insurance—such as explaining terminology, sharing industry statistics, reporting news, or sharing personal experiences—provided the content does not target specific individuals to purchase from specific companies. The guidelines also set out best practices for communication, including presenting information in a fair and balanced manner that covers both benefits and limitations, encouraging consumers to read policy terms and consult licensed professionals, verifying information from credible sources before dissemination, and exercising special care when the audience may include vulnerable groups such as persons aged 60 and older. Prohibited Practices Prohibited practices include fear-based marketing, creating artificial urgency, omitting material limitations, making exaggerated claims, falsely claiming professional credentials, using fake engagement mechanisms, and sharing false or misleading content. The guidelines also reinforce the prohibitions under section 83 of the Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 and section 78 of the Non-Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 against soliciting insurance contracts with foreign operators
August 11, 2026
On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below. Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete. The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days. In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may