Ideation, Conceptualization, Realization E-Book

Sarah Leins-Zurmuehle

• Herausgeber: buch & netz
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 920

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021

Beschreibung

The software industry is regarded as one of the most creative and dynamic industries in the world. At the same time, sheltering software through copyright and patent law has been a major point of contention for the past 40 years. This doctoral thesis aims to provide new insights to this discussion. Through the use of sociological methodology, it supplies the necessary basic scientific reasearch regarding how software is developed and commercialized nowadays. Based on these findings, it then legally evaluates to what extent copyright and patent law are able to reflect these structures and determines how an optimal protection scope for computer programs could look like today. This doctoral thesis on one hand offers novel insights and points of view on existing legal doctrines. It further acknowledges as well as legally qualifies some prevailing trends in the software industry, such as Scrum and continuous delivery, that have so far been largely unaddressed by copyright and patent law.

Leseprobe

Ideation, Conceptualization, Realization ─

Discovering the Creative Scope in Software Engineering from thePerspective of Copyright and Patent Law

Dissertation at the Faculty of Law of the University of Zurich

to obtain a Doctoral degree

submitted by: MLaw Sarah Leins-Zurmuehle of Weggis LU

supervised by: Prof. Dr. iur. Florent Thouvenin and Prof. Dr. iur. Andreas Heinemann

Ideation, Conceptualization, Realization – Discovering the Creative Scope in Software Engineering from the Perspective of Copyright and Patent Law by Sarah Leins-Zurmuehle is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

© 2021 – CC BY-NC-ND (Work), CC BY-SA (Text)

Author: Sarah Leins-ZurmuehlePublisher: EIZ PublishingProduction, Set & Distribution: buch & netz (buchundnetz.com)Illustrations: © Sarah Leins-Zurmuehle, Robin LeinsISBN:978-3-03805-409-2 (Print – Softcover)978-3-03805-412-2 (Print – Hardcover)978-3-03805-444-3 (PDF)978-3-03805-445-0 (ePub)DOI: https://doi.org/10.36862/eiz-409Version: 1.05 – 20211008

The dissertation was submitted by Sarah Leins-Zurmuehle and adopted by the Faculty of Law of the University of Zurich, represented by Dean Prof. Dr. Brigitte Tag, on May 27, 2020.It was supervised by Prof. Dr. iur. Florent Thouvenin and Prof. Dr. iur. Andreas Heinemann.

The open access publication of this book has been published with the support of the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF).

This work is available in print and various digital formats in OpenAccess. Additional information is available at: https://eizpublishing.com/publikationen/ideation-conceptualization-realization/.

1

“In the end nobody knows how it’s done – how art is made. It can’t be explained. (…) Understanding a tool doesn’t explain the magic of creation. Nothing can.”

Quote by David Hockney, an English artist, issued in an interview with Martin Gayford of the Telegraph, published on September 22, 2001, available at <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4725696/Hockney-and-the­-secrets-of-the-Old-Masters.html> (retrieved September 6, 2021).

Contents

DedicationAcknowledgementsIndexList of AbbreviationsReferencesList of FiguresAbstractChapter 1: IntroductionChapter 2: MethodologyChapter 3: Technical FoundationChapter 4: Status Quo of Legal Software ProtectionChapter 5: Findings of the Interview SeriesChapter 6: Discussion of Selected ProblemsChapter 7: Prospect and ClosingCurriculum Vitae

2

Acknowledgements

This book is the result of research for my doctoral thesis at the University of Zurich.

In the course of my dissertation project, I benefitted from the support and advice of many researchers and practitioners:

First of all, I would like to thank my academic supervisors and Ph.D. advisors Prof. Dr. iur. Florent Thouvenin and Prof. Dr. iur. Andreas Heinemann. Prof. Dr. iur. Florent Thouvenin’s sharp way of thinking and cross-linked view challenged me to improve this thesis to its final extent. He generously shared his knowledge and helped me to focus on the important questions. Prof. Dr. iur. Andreas Heinemann has supported my research since the beginning, although at first not in an official role. His inspiring, always constructive, helpful, calm and professional nature allowed me to find confidence in my research question.

Another person without whose work my thesis would not have reached its desired form is Dr. phil. Claudia Vorheyer, former Senior Assistant at the Institute of Sociology, University of Zurich. She supported me tenaciously throughout my interdisciplinary research and showed me where to turn. Her infinite knowledge and know-how of sociological methodology is inspiring and her enthusiasm contagious. Thank you, Claudia, for your patience and sincere support. I know you are going to be a wonderful professor!

I would also like to thank the Europa Institute at the University of Zurich (EIZ) for making this publication possible and particularly Atty. Dr. iur. Tobias Baumgartner, LL.M., and MLaw Michael Mayer for collaborating in an exceptionally supportive and constructive manner, enabling me to finalize and publish this thesis.

On the way, I met so many practitioners who were very supportive. I want to express my admiration for the lawyers, project managers and developers working in this field in an inventive and creative manner. My grateful thanks go out to all the (anonymized) interview candidates and companies who gave me their time and voluntarily shared their knowledge. Further thanks go to those who gave me initial input and helped me to connect with the right people. My particular thanks go to PD Dr. sc. Matthias Stuermer, dipl. HTL. Ing. Frans van der Reijden, Atty. Dr. iur. Georg Rauber, Atty. Dr. iur. Rolf auf der Maur, Atty. Dr. iur. Thomas Steiner, LL.M., and Atty. Dr. iur. Martin Eckert. I want to say a special thank you to Atty. Dr. iur. Wolfgang Straub, LL.M., who supported me with his extraordinary legal and technical expertise in the software field. This exchange and his feedback on my research were vital for the final version. Thank you so much, Wolfgang, for your exceptional support and commitment!

Prof. Dr. iur. Urs Gasser, LL.M., enabled me to spend two inspiring and instructive months as a visiting researcher at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society of Harvard University. It was in Cambridge where my interview study was finalized. Thank you so much, Urs and the representatives of the Berkman Klein Center, for enabling my stay and making it worthwhile. The Berkman Klein Center represents an accumulation of the most fascinating and enthused researchers and practitioners in the field.

A researcher cannot face the challenges of the research without the support of their closest ones – thank you to my dear friends and family. My special thanks go out to MSc dipl. Inf. Felix Kaiser and Prof. Dr. phil. Stefan Leins, who spent hours helping to edit my work. I owe you my deepest gratitude. I am greatly indebted to Atty. Dr. iur. des. Angelika Murer, my dear friend, with whom I had untiring discussions about her, my and our common research.

Finally, the greatest thanks go to MA ETH HPK Robin Leins. His advice was prudent and challenging at the same time, his wonderful sketches were a presentation to the point. Thank you for keeping me focused and smiling, even through the cloudy days.

Zurich, September 2021.

3

Index

List of Abbreviations

References

BibliographyElectronic SourcesOthers

List of Figures

Abstract

Chapter 1: Introduction

Introduction to the Research SubjectDefinition of the Research ProblemChapter Overview

Chapter 2: Methodology

Introduction to the Socio-Scientific Approach and Selection of a Research MethodLiterature ReviewInterview SeriesPurpose of the Interview SeriesFocus of the InterviewSelecting an Interview TypeThe ‘Expert’ TermSamplingInitial and Theoretical SamplingThe Sample GroupPreparing the InterviewsAnticipating the Interview SituationStructure and Content of the InterviewsTranscriptionData AnalysisSelecting a MethodAnalysis and Theory-Building

Chapter 3: Technical Foundation

Definition of Relevant TermsThe Science of Software EngineeringElements of a Computer ProgramTypology of Computer ProgramsThe Development ProcessThe Standard Phase ModelIdeationConceptualizationRealizationImplementationReview and MaintenanceThree Different Approaches for Developing SoftwareLinear DevelopmentSpiral DevelopmentContinuous DeliverySoftware Project Management and CommercializationBrief Overview of the Economics of Software EngineeringSoftware Project ManagementCommercializationClassic Software CommercializationOpen Source and Free Software in Particular

Chapter 4: Status Quo of Legal Software Protection

The Legal Institutions for Software ProtectionIntroduction to Legal Software ProtectionBrief Overview of the Available Legal Protection MeasuresIntellectual Property LawPatent LawCopyrightIndustrial Design RightsTrademarkUtility Models (Gebrauchsmuster)Unfair Competition LawTrade SecretsTaking Undue Advantage of Somebody Else’s AchievementContract LawTabular SummaryFunction of Intellectual Property LawInternational ContextParis Convention for the Protection of Industrial PropertyRevised Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic WorksUniversal Copyright ConventionEuropean Patent ConventionAgreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property RightsWIPO Copyright TreatyPatent LawPatent as an Intellectual Property RightPatent ScopeSubject MatterInterpretation under the European Patent ConventionInterpretation under the Swiss Patent CodeInterpretation under the U.S. Code and Affiliated Case LawConclusion: Are Computer Programs Patentable?Protection RequirementsNoveltyNon-ObviousnessIndustrial ApplicabilityTerm of ProtectionStarting Point of Protection: RegistrationEnd of ProtectionCopyrightCopyright as an Intellectual Property RightCopyright ScopeSubject MatterCreative and Artistic WorksExclusion of Ideas and Functional PrerequisitesIdeasFunctionalitiesCurrent Interpretation of the Subject Matter of Software CopyrightProtection RequirementsIntellectual CreationOriginality (Individuality)Term of ProtectionConclusion

Chapter 5: Findings of the Interview Series

Software DevelopmentThe Relevance of Software EngineeringThe Development ProcessThe ProcessDurationProgramming in ParticularSelection of a Programming LanguageAdaptability of Computer ProgramsSoftware CommercializationThe Software MarketOffering on the International MarketFree CompetitionDistribution ModelsExcursus: The Significance of Open Source for Software EngineeringChances and BenefitsRisks and Negative EffectsClosing CommentaryProduct Life CycleKnow-how in Software EngineeringThe Significance of Knowledge and Know-howKnowledge Transfer and ProtectionCreativity and Innovation in Software EngineeringCreativityWhat is Creativity in Software Engineering?The Impact of Toolboxes, Libraries and Assistance on CreativityInnovationWhat is Innovation?Inventions in Software Engineering in ParticularTriviality as Contrary to InnovationDiscovering the Innovative MomentumThe Legal Protection of Computer ProgramsThe Significance of Software ProtectionExperiences with the Current Legal FrameworkPositive AspectsNegative Experiences and Suggestions for ImprovementComputer Programs as Intellectual PropertiesThe Time FactorCommissioned WorkPatentability of Computer ProgramsMachines vs. ComputersRequirements for PatentingThe Power to Block and AbusePatenting as the Discipline of KingsThe Optimal FrameworkThe Function of Software ProtectionPotential Objects of ProtectionValuable ComponentsThe Suggested Objects for Software ProtectionStarting Point for Legal ProtectionThe End of the Term of ProtectionPoints of ReferenceAdequate Protection PeriodSetting the Limits: Admissible and Inadmissible Third-Party InterventionsDelimiting Second-Hand Works: Where Do they Offer a Contribution?Translations of the Source Code in ParticularLimiting Extensive Rights of Standard-Essential Patents and Fostering Incremental ImprovementsStandard-Essential DevelopmentsIncremental ImprovementsSecond-Hand Works: How To Compare Computer ProgramsLaw Enforcement: Infringements and Legal DisputesInfringementsLegal DisputesSummary

Chapter 6: Discussion of Selected Problems

Preface: Is there a Future for Legal Software Protection?Copyright and Patent Protection: Hybrid Model or Copyright only?The Protection Scope in Copyright and Patent LawCircumscribing the Potential Subject MatterDiscovering Creativitiy and Inventiveness in Software EngineeringCreativity in Software EngineeringInventiveness in Software EngineeringProtected InterestsKnow-How and ResourcesKnow-How and Resource Protection in Copyright and Patent LawThe Protection Requirements in Copyright and Patent LawPotential Subjects of Legal Software ProtectionWhole Software ProductCodeAlgorithm(Graphical) User InterfaceLook-and-FeelFeatures and FunctionsDevelopment DocumentationTabular SummaryNot Protected Elements in ParticularDistinguishing between Ideas and ExpressionsStandards, Necessities and Best PracticesThe Blackbox Test to Identify Unprotectable ElementsHow to Integrate Newer Development TrendsIncremental ExtensionInner ChangeConclusionTerm of ProtectionStarting Point for Legal Protection The ProblemPotential Starting Point for Linearly Developed ProgramsPotential Starting Point for Non-Linear Development ApproachesSpiral DevelopmentInner ChangesExpirationThe Duration of the Protection TermConnection PointConclusionExcursus: Second-Hand and Dependent CreationsThe Right Holder’s Right to Protect a Work from Further ProcessingEdited and Derivative WorksOn Translations in ParticularThe Community’s Right to Profit from an Exclusive PropertyStandard-Essential DevelopmentsTypes of StandardsThe Antitrust ApproachThe Patent Law ApproachBased on a Superior Public InterestTo Mitigate Negative Effects of PatentingNotes on the Possible Licensing Procedure and TermsIncremental ImprovementsInsufficient Regulation in Art. 31 lit. l TRIPSTechnical AdvanceImportant AdvancementConsiderable Economic SignificanceNotes on the Possible Licensing Procedure and TermsConclusion

Chapter 7: Prospect and Closing

Scientific ContributionKey MeritsArea for Action De Lege Lata and De Lege FerendaDe Lege LataDe Lege FerendaLimitations and Perspective

4

List of Abbreviations

Only abbrevations which are used in this thesis are listed below.

ACMAssosiation for Computing MachineryAIPPIAssociation International pour la Protection de la Propriété IndustrielleArt.articleAustrian GMGAustrian Gebrauchsmustergesetz of April 1, 1994, BGBl. 1994/211 (status as of June 14, 2018)BAGBundesarbeitsgericht (German Federal Labour Court)BBBetriebs-Berater (periodical journal for law and economics)Beck RSBeck Rechtsprechung (collecton of jurisprudence)BGELeitentscheide des Bundesgerichts (published ruling of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court)BGerBundesgerichtsentscheid (unpublished ruling of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court)BGBlBundesgesetzblatt (German federal law gazette)BGHBundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice)BGHZEntscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofs in Zivilsachen (collection of the decisions of the civil law court division of the German Federal High Court of Justice)BPatGBundespatentgericht (German Federal Patent Court)BPatGerBundespatentgericht (Swiss Federal Patent Court)BT-DrucksDrucksachen und Plenarprotokolle des Bundestages (documents of the German Parliament)c.considerationCDcompact discGCGeneral CourtCHFSwiss Franc(s)Cir.Circuit Court in the United StatesCJEUCourt of Juctice of the European UnionComputer Program DirectiveCouncil Directive (91/250/EEC) of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs, implemented 1 January 1993, in force until 23 April 2009, substituted by the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council (2009/24/EC) of 23 April 2009Cong.U.S. CongressCopyright DirectiveDirective of the European Parliament and of the Council (2001/29/EC) of 22 May 2001, on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information societyDINDeutsches Institut für Normierung (German Institute for Standardization)ECDREuropean Copyright and Design ReportsEC Copyright Term of Protection DirectiveCouncil Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993, harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rightsECJEuropean Court of JusticeE-Commerce DirectiveDirective of the European Parliament and of the Council (2000/31/EC) of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Marketed.editoreds.editorsEPCEuropean Patent Convention of 5 October 1973, revised 29 November 2000 (status as of June, 2016)EPOEuropean Patent OfficeEPO Tdecisions of the European Patent Office and its Board of AppealEUREuro(s)EWCACourt of Appeal of England and WalesEWHCHigh Court of England and Walesf.following pageFed. Cir.U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitff.following pagesfn.footnoteFrench IP CodeFrench Intellectual Property Code of 1 July 1992, no 92–597 (status as of August 1, 2019)German DesGGerman Design Act of 24 February 2014, BGBl. I S. 122 (status as of July 17, 2017)German GebrMGGerman Gebrauchsmustergesetz of 28 August 1986, BGBl. I 1455 (status as of July 17, 2017)German GeschGehGGerman Trade Secret Protection Act of 18 April 2019, BGBl. I S. 466German MarkenGGerman Markengesetz of 25 October 1994, BGBl. I S. 3082 (status as of December 11, 2018)German PatGGerman Patent Code of 5 May 1938, revised 16 December 1980, BGBl. 1981 I 1 (status as of October 8, 2017)German UrhGGerman Copyright Act of 9 September 1965, BGBl. I S. 1273 (status as of November 28, 2018)German UWGGerman Act against Unfair Competition of 3 July 2004, BGBl. I S. 3714 (status as of April 18, 2019)GRURGewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (periodical)HGerHandelsgericht (Commercial Court of cantons in Switzerland)ibid.ibidemICTinformation and communication technologyicwin conjunction withIECInternational Electrotechnical CommissionIEEEInstitute of Electrical and Electronics EngineersIPintellectual propertyISOInternational Organization for StandardizationLanham ActLanham Trademark Act of 5 July 1946, 60 Stat. 427, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 ff.LGLandgericht (lower regional courts in Germany)lit.literamio.million(s)MMRMultimedia und Recht (periodical)Nmarginal noteNJWNeue Juristische Wochenschrift (periodical)no.numberOECDOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentOGerObergericht (High Court of cantons in Switzerland)OLGOberlandsgericht (higher regional courts in Germany)openJURlegal database for German decisionsORSwiss Code of Obligations, Federal Act on the Amendment of the Swiss Civil Code of 30 March 1911, SR 220 (status as of April 1, 2017)para.paragraphParis ConventionRevised Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 14 July 1967 (status as of March 20, 1983)PCTPatent Cooperation Treaty of 19 June 1970, revised 3 October 2001 (status as of June 28, 2019)PMMBlPatent-, Muster, und Markenblatt (publication of patent applications and granted patents in Switzerland before 1 July 2008)RBCRevised Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of 9 September 1886, revised in Paris on July 24, 1971 (status as of June 27, 2019)RPCReports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark CasesS.U.S. Senatesect.sectionSes.Session of the U.S. Congress or U.S. Senatesic!Swiss Law Review for Intellectual Property, Information and Competition LawSIWRSchweizerisches Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht (book series)SRSystematische Rechtsammlung (classified compilation in Switzerland)Swiss CopASwiss Federal Act on Copyright and Related Rights of 9 October 1992, SR 231.1 (status as of 1 January, 2020)Swiss DesGSwiss Designs Act of 5 October 2001, SR 232.2 (status as of January 1, 2017)Swiss DesRSwiss Designs Regulation of 8 March 2001, SR 232.12 (status as of January 1, 2017)Swiss MSchGSwiss Trade Mark Protection Act of 28 August 1992, SR 232.11 (status as of April 1, 2019)Swiss PatGSwiss Patents Act of 25 June 1954, SR 232.14 (status as of January 1, 2012)Swiss UWGSwiss Act against Unfair Competition of 19 December 1986 SR 241.00 (status as of July 1, 2016)TRIPS AgreementAgreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights of 15 April 1994, Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (status as of January 23, 2017)UCCUniversal Copyright Convention of 24 July 1971 (status as of April 23, 2010)UFITAInstitut für Urheber- und Medienrecht (series of publication), previously named Archiv für Urheber-, Film-, Funk- und TheaterrechtUK IP ActUnited Kingdom Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 15 November 1988 (status as of October 11, 2018)UKSCUnited Kingdom Supreme CourtU.S. CodeCode of Laws of the United States of America of 30 June 1926 (status as of 2018)U.S. ConstitutionConstitution of the United States of 4 March 1789 (status as of April 18, 1999)USDU.S. Dollar(s)UTSAUniform Trade Secrets Act of 1979, amended 2 August 1985vol.volumeWCTWIPO Copyright Treaty of 20 December 1996 (status as of June 27, 2019)WIPOWorld Intellectual Property OrganizationWTOWorld Trade Organization

5

References

Bibliography

Allison John R./Lemley Mark A./Schwartz David L., Our divided patent system, the University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 82 no. 3, 2015, pp. 1073 ff.

Andrews Philip Walter Sawford, Manufacturing Business, London 1949.

Apel Sven, The Role of Features and Aspects in Software Development, Dissertation at the Otto-von-Guericke University, Magdeburg 2007.

Armstrong John A., Trends in Global Science and Technology and What They Mean for Intellectual Property Systems, in: Wallerstein M./Mogee M./Schoen R. (eds.), Global Dimensions of Intellectual Property Rights in Science and Technology, Washington (DC) 1993, pp. 192 ff.

Arrow Kenneth J., Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention, Readings in industrial economics, London 1972, pp. 219 ff.

Associaftion Internationale pour la Protection de la Propriété Industrielle (AIPPI), Protection of Computer-Software, yearbook III of 1975, question 57 of the 29th Congress of San Francisco (May 3-7, 1975), Geneva 1975, found online on: <https://www.aippi.fr/upload/Q1%20-%2089%20/rs57english.pdf> (retrieved September 6, 2021), cited as Aippi.

Atteslander Peter, Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, 13th edition, Berlin 2010.

Banasevic Nicholas, The Implications of the Court of Justice’s Huawei/ZTE Judgment, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, vol. 6 no. 7, 2015, pp. 463 ff.

Barrelet Denis/Egloff Willi, Das neue Urheberrecht. Kommentar zum Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 3rd edition, Berne 2008.

Barry Evelyn J./Kemerer Chris F./Slaughter Sandra A., On the Uniformity of Software Evolution Patterns, Proceedings on the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Computer Society Press, New York 2003, pp. 106 ff., found online at <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=1201192> (retrieved September 6, 2021).

Bauknecht Kurt/Zehnder Carl August, Grundzüge der Datenverarbeitung. Methoden und Konzepte für die Anwendungen. Leitfäden der angewandten Informatik, Stuttgart 1989.

Becker Mario/Haberfellner Reinhard/Liebetrau Georg/Voessner Siegfried: EDV-Wissen für Anwender. Das Informatik-Handbuch für die Praxis, 13th edition, Zurich/Stuttgart 2004, cited as Becker et al.

Beier Friedrich-Karl, Die Bedeutung des Patentsystems für den technischen, wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Fortschritt, GRUR International, 1979, pp. 227 ff.

Belady Laszlo A./Lehman Meir M., A Model of Large Program Development, IBM Systems Journal, vol. 15 no. 3, 1976 , pp. 225 ff.

Bell Abraham/Parchomovsky Gideon, Reinventing Copyright and Patent, Michigan Law Review, vol. 113, 2014, pp 231 ff.

Bell Thomas E./Thayer Thomas A., Software Requirements: Are They Really a Problem?, Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Software engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, New York 1976, pp. 61 ff.

Benkard Georg/Ehlers Jochen/Kinkeldey Ursula (eds.), Europäisches Patentübereinkommen, Munich 2012, cited as Commentary to the EPC (editor).

Benoit Kenneth/Wiesehomeier Nina, Expert Judgments, in: Pickel S./Pickel G./Lauth H.-J./Jahn D. (eds.), Methoden der vergleichende Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 497 ff.

Beresford Keith, Patenting Software under the European Patent Convention, London 2000.

Bock Richard, Simultane Produktentwicklung – Konzepte und Realisierungsalternativen, in: Scheer A.-W., Handbuch Informationsmanagement, Wiesbaden 1993, pp. 221 ff.

Bodewig Theo, Einige Überlegungen zur Erschöpfung bei Zwangslizenzen an standardessentiellen Patenten, GRUR International, 2015, pp. 626 ff.

Boecker Lina B., Computerprogramme zwischen Werk und Erfindung. Eine wettbewerbsorientierte Analyse des immaterialgüterrechtlichen Schutzes von Computerprogrammen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Open Source-Software, Dissertation at the University of Berlin, in: Mestmaecker E.-J./Moeschel W./Hellwig M., Wirtschaftsrecht und Wirtschaftspolitik, Band 229, Baden-Baden 2009.

Boehm Barry W., Software Engineering Economics, Englewood Cliffs River (NJ) 1981, cited as Boehm (1981).

Boehm Barry W., A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement, Computer, IEEE Computer Society Press, vol. 21 no. 5, 1988, pp. 61 ff., cited as Boehm (1988).

Bogner Alexander/Menz Wolfgang, Das theoriengenerierende Experteninterview – Erkenntnisse, Wissensformen, Interaktion, in: Bogner A./Littig B./Menz W. (eds.), Experteninterviews. Theorien, Methoden, Anwendungsfelder, 3rd edition, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 61 ff., cited as Bogner/Menz (2009a).

Bogner Alexander/Menz Wolfgang, Experteninterview und der Wandel der Wissensproduktion, in: Bogner A./Littig B./Menz W. (eds.), Experteninterviews. Theorien, Methoden, Anwendungsfelder, 3rd edition, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 7 ff., cited as Bogner/Menz (2009b).

Bohnsack Ralf/Geimer Alexander/Meuser Michael, Hauptbegriffe qualitativer Sozialforschung, 4th edition, Opladen/Toronto 2018.

Bornhauser Jonas, Anwendungsbereich und Beschränkung des urheberrechtlichen Vervielfältigungsrechts im digitalen Kontext, Dissertation at the University of Zurich, Berne 2010.

Bowen Glenn A., Document Analysis as a Qualitative Method, Qualitative Research Journal, vol. 9 no. 2, 2009, pp. 27 ff.

Brandi-Dohrn Matthias, Zur Reichweite und Durchsetzung des urheberrechtlichen Softwareschutzes, GRUR, 1985, pp. 179 ff.

Braumoeller Bear F./Goertz Gary, The Methodology of Necessary Conditions, American Journal of Political Science, vol. 44 no. 4, 2000, pp. 844 ff.

Briner Alfred, Patentierungsvoraussetzungen, in: David L./von Bueren R. (eds.), SIWR IV, Basel/Geneva/Munich 2006, pp. 47 ff.

Buehler Lukas, Schweizerisches und internationales Urheberrecht im Internet, Dissertation of the University of Fribourg, Fribourg 1999.

Bullinger Hans-Joerg/Faehnrich Klaus-Peter/Ilg Rolf, Benutzungsoberflächen und Entwicklungswerkzeuge, in: Scheer A.-W., Handbuch Informationsmanagement, Wiesbaden 1993, pp. 939 ff.

Burkert Herbert/Hettich Peter/Thouvenin Florent, Eine kritische Geschichte des Informationsrechts – Erlebte, bevorstehende und versäumte Paradigmenwechsel im Recht zufolge Digitalisierung, in: Gschwend L./Hettich P./Mueller-Chen M./Schindler/Wildhaber I., Recht im digitalen Zeitalter. Festgabe Schweizerischer Juristentag 2015 in St. Gallen, Zurich/St. Gallen 2005, pp. 49 ff.

Buxmann Peter/Hess Thomas/Lehmann Sonja, Software as a Service, Wirtschaftsinformatik, vol. 50 no. 6, 2008, pp. 500 ff.

Calame Thierry, Grundlagen; Die Berechtigung an der Erfindung; Die Wirkung des Patents; Besonderheiten von computerimplmentierten Erfindungen, in: David L./von Bueren R. (eds.), SIWR IV, Basel/Geneva/Munich 2006, pp. 3 ff., 171 ff., 401 ff. and 651 ff., cited as Calame (2006).

Calame Thierry, Softwareschutz: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen, in: Internet-Recht und Electronic Commerce Law, 9. Tagungsband, Berne 2007, pp. 325 ff., cited as Calame (2007).

Carleton Dennis M., A Behaviour-Based Model for Determining Software Copyright Infringement, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, vol. 10 no. 2, 1995, 405 ff.

Charmaz Kathy, Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis, London 2013.

Chen Lianping, Continuous Delivery: Huge Benefits, but Challenges Too, IEEE, vol. 32 no. 2, 2015, pp. 50 ff.

Cherpillod Ivan, L’objet du droit d’auteur. Etude critique de la distinction entre forme et idée, Dissertation at the University of Lausanne, Lausanne 1985, cited as Cherpillod (1985).

Cherpillod Ivan, Urheberrecht: Geltungsbereich, in: David L./von Bueren R. (eds.), SIWR II/1, Basel/Geneva/Munich 2014, pp. 14 ff., cited as Cherpillod (2014).

Cicourel Aaron V., Method and Measurement in Sociology, London 1964.

Cockburn Alistair, Using Both Incremental and Iterative Development, STSC CrossTalk, USAF Software Technology Support Center, vol 21 no. 5, Utah 2008, pp. 27 ff.

Cohen Morris A./Eliasberg Jehoshua/Ho Teck-Hua, New Product Development: The Performance and Time-to-Market Tradeoff, Management Science, vol. 42 no. 2, 1996, pp. 173 ff.

Cohen Julie E./Lemley Mark A., Patent Scope and Innovation in the Software Industry California Law Review, vol. 89, 2007, pp. 1 ff.

Corbin Juliet/Strauss Anselm, Basics of Qualitative Research, 4th edition, Los Angeles 2015.

Cowan Robin/Jonard Nicolas, The Dynamics of Collective Invention, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, vol. 52 no. 4, 2003, pp. 513 ff.

Cross Nigel, Design Cognition: Results from Protocol and other Empirical Studies of Design Activity, in: Eastman C./McCracken M./Newstetter W. (eds.), Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education, Atlanta (GA) 2001, pp. 79 ff.

David Paul A., Intellectual Property Institutions and the Panda’s Thumb: Patent, Copyright, and Trade Secrets in Economic Theory and History, in: Wallerstein M./Mogee M./Schoen R. (eds.), Global Dimensions of Intellectual Property Rights in Science and Technology, Washington (DC) 1993, pp. 29 ff.

Davidson Ducan M., The Future of Software Protection: Common Law, Uncommon Software, University of Pittsburgh Law Review, vol. 47, 1985, pp. 1037 ff.

Deeke Axel, Experteninterviews – ein methodologisches und forschungspraktisches Problem. Einleitende Bemerkungen und Fragen zum Workshop, in: Brinkmann Ch./Deeke A./Voelkel B. (eds.), Experteninterviews in der Arbeitsmarktforschung, Nuernberg 1995, pp. 7 ff.

Denzin Norman K., The Art and Politics of Interpretation, in: Denzin Norman K./Lincoln Yvonna S., Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, Thousand Oaks 1998, pp. 313 ff.

Dessemontet François, Einführung: Immaterialgüterrecht und Privatrecht; Schutzdauer, in: David L./von Bueren R. (eds.), SIWR I/1, Basel/Geneva/Munich 1995, pp. 1 ff. and 315 ff.

Denzin Norman K./Lincoln Yvonna S., The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 5th edition, Los Angeles 2005.

Dijkstra Edsger W., A Discipline of Programming, Englewood Cliffs (NJ) 1976.

Dorr Robert C./Munch Christopher H., Protecting Trade Secrets, Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks, New York (NY) 1995.

Dreier Thomas, Der Urheberrechtsschutz für Computerprogramme im Ausland – Rechtsfragen und Tendenzen in Rechtsprechung und Gesetzgebung, GRUR Int., 1988, pp. 476 ff., cited as Dreier (1988).

Dreier Thomas, Verletzung urheberrechtlich geschützter Software nach der Umsetzung der EG-Richtlinie, GRUR, 1993, pp. 781 ff., cited as Dreier (1993).

Dubin Joseph S., The Universal Copyright Convention, California Law Review, vol. 42 no. 1, 1954, pp. 89 ff.

Dutfield Graham/Suthersanen Uma, Global Intellectual Property Law, Cheltenham (UK)/Northhampton (MA) 2008.

Ebbinghaus Bernhard, Mehr oder weniger? Quantitativer versus Qualitativer Vergleich, in: Pickel S./Pickel G./Lauth H.-J./Jahn D. (eds.), Methoden der vergleichende Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 197 ff.

Edvardsson Bo, Quality in New Service Development: Key Concepts and a Frame of Reference, International Journal of Production Economics, no. 52/1-2, Oxford 1997, pp. 31 ff.

Ensthaler Juergen/Moellenkamp Heinz T., GRUR, 1994, pp. 151 ff.

Erlandson David A./Harris Edward L./Skipper Barbara L./Allen Steve D., Doing Naturalistic Inquiry: A Guide to Methods, Newbury Park/London/New Delhi 1993.

Ernst Stefan, Die Verfügbarkeit des Source Codes – Rechtlicher Know-how-Schutz bei Software und Webdesign, MMR, 2001, pp. 208 ff.

Errat Judy A./Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, A Study on the Patent Law Standard of Non-obviousness, Ottawa 1996.

Ewusi-Mensah Kweku, Critical Issues in Abandoned Information Systems Development Projects, Communications of the ACM, vol. 40 no. 9, 1997, pp. 74 ff.

Finch John H., The Role of Grounded Theory in Developing Economic Theory, Journal of Economic Methodology, vol. 9 no. 2, 2002, pp. 213 ff.

Fisher Francis D., The Electronic Lumberyard Builders’ Rights: Technology, Copyrights, Patents, and Academe, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, vol. 21 no. 3, 1989, pp. 12 ff.

Floyd Robert W., The Paradigms of Programming, Communications of the ACM, vol. 22 no. 8, 1979, pp. 455 ff.

Foegen Malte/Meyser Astrid/Gansser Caroline/Croome David/Raak Claudia/Battenfeld Joerg/Kroell Anna K./Fritsch-Leopoldt Christoph/Porro Simon, Der ultimative Scrum Guide, Darmstadt 2014, cited as Foegen et al.

Forstmoser Peter, Vertragsprobleme im Bereich der EDV, Sysdata und Bürotechnik, vol. 8-9, Liestal 1975, pp. VI ff.

Frei Alexandra, Softwareschutz durch Patentrecht, in: Thomann F. H./Rauber G. (eds.), Softwareschutz, Bern 1998, pp. 97 ff.

Froehlich-Bleuler Gianni, Indirekte Nutzung von Computerprogrammen, sui-generis, Zurich 2018, pp. 464 ff.

Fuegi John/Francis Jo, Lovelace & Babbage and the Creation of the 1843 ‘Notes’, IEEE Computer Society Press, vol. 25 no. 4, 2003, pp. 16 ff., found online at <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1253887> (retrieved September 6, 2021).

Fusco Stefania, Is In Re Bilski a Déjà Vu?, Stanford Technology Law Review, Palo Alto 2009, pp. 143 ff.

Galal Galal Hassan, From Contexts to Constructs: The Use of Grounded Theory in Operationalising Contingent Process Models, European Journal of Information Systems 10 no. 1, Abingdon 2001, pp. 2 ff.

George Alexander L./Bennett Andrew, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge (MA) 2005.

Giddens Anthony, Leben in einer post-traditionalen Gesellschaft, Soziale Welt, vol. 44 no. 4, 1993, pp. 445 ff.

Girtler Roland, Methoden der Feldforschung, 4th edition, Vienna/Cologne/Weimar 2001.

Glaser Barney G./ trauss Anselm L., The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research, London/New York 2017.

Gmehlich Rainer/Rust Heinrich, Mehr als nur Programmieren. Eine Einführung in die Informatik, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden 1993.

Goldstein Kenneth, Getting in the Door: Sampling and Completing Elite Interviews, Political Science and Politics, vol. 35 no. 4, 2002, pp. 669 ff.

Gordon Raymond L., Interviewing: Strategy, Techniques and Tactics, Homewood (IL) 1969.

Govoni Carlo, Der urheberrechtliche Schutz von Computerprogrammen, Aktuelle Juristische Praxis, 1993, pp. 569 ff.

Grossenbacher Roland, Die Entwicklung des Welturheberrechtsabkommens im Hinblick auf den Beitritt der Sowjetunion, Dissertation at the University of Zurich, Zurich 1977.

Gruetzmacher Malte, Gebrauchtsoftware und Übertragbarkeit von Lizenzen. Zu den Rechtsfragen auch jenseits der Erschöpfungslehre, Computer und Recht, vol. 23 no. 9, 2007, pp. 549 ff.

Haberstumpf Helmut, Computerprogramm und Algorithmus. Zur Vereinbarkeit des urheberrechtlichen Schutzes für Computerprogramme mit den Erfordernissen des wissenschaftlichen Fortschritts, UFITA, vol. 95, 1983, pp. 221 ff., cited as Haberstumpf (1983).

Haberstumpf Helmut, Der urheberrechtliche Schutz von Computerprogrammen, in: Lehmann M. (ed.), Rechtsschutz und Verwertung von Computerprogrammen, 2nd edition, Cologne 1993, pp. 69 ff., cited as Haberstumpf (1993).

Hage Jerald, Techniques and Problems of Theory Construction in Sociology, New York 1972.

Harison Elad, Intellectual Property Rights Innovation and Software Technologies. The Economics of Monopoly Rights and Knowledge Disclosure, Cheltenham 2008.

Hart Chris, Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination, 2nd edition, London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi/Singapore 2018.

Heinemann Andreas, Immaterialgüterschutz in der Wettbewerbsordnung: Eine grundlagenorientierte Untersuchung zum Kartellrecht des geistigen Eigentums, Jus Privatum, vol. 65, Tuebingen 2002, cited as Heinemann (2002).

Heinemann Andreas, Compulsory Licences and Product Integration in European Competition Law – Assessment of the European Commission’s Microsoft Decision, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol. 36, 2005, pp. 63 ff., cited as Heinemann (2005).

Heinemann Andreas, Gefährdung von Rechten des geistigen Eigentums durch Kartellrecht? Der Fall „Microsoft” und die Rechtsprechung des EuGH, GRUR, 2006, pp. 705 ff., cited as Heinemann (2006).

Heinemann Andreas, Wettbewerb auf den Märkten der Informationstechnologie – Die Perspektive des Europäischen Kartellrechts, in: Epiney A./Diezig St. (eds.), Schweizerisches Jahrbuch für Europarecht 2012/2013, Zurich/Basel/Geneva 2013, pp. 355 – 376, cited as Heinemann (2013).

Heinemann Andreas, Standardessenzielle Patente in Normenorganisationen. Kartellrechtliche Vorgaben für die Einlösung von Lizenzierungsversprechen, GRUR, 2015, pp. 855 ff., cited as Heinemann (2015).

Heinrich Peter, DesG/HMA: Kommentar zum schweizerischen Designgesetz, den entsprechenden Bestimmungen des Haager Musterschutzabkommens und weiteren Erlassen, 2nd edition, Zurich 2014, cited as Orell Fuessli Commentary to the Swiss DesG.

Heinrich Peter, PatG/EPÜ: Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Patentgesetz und den entsprechenden Bestimmungen des Europäischen Patentübereinkommens synoptisch dargestellt, 3nd edition, Berne 2018, cited as Staempfli Commentary to the Swiss PatG/EPC.

Helfferich Cornelia, Die Qualität qualitativer Daten. Manual für die Durchführung qualitativer Interviews, 3rd edition, Wiesbaden 2011.

Hepp Dieter/Mueller Christoph/Herrmann Torbjoern, Softwareschutz und Softwareverträge in einzelnen Ländern: Schweiz, in: Ullrich H./ Lejeune M. (eds.), Der internationale Softwarevertrag nach deutschem und ausländischem Recht, 2nd edition, Frankfurt am Main 2006, pp. 1151 ff.

Hess Thomas/Wilde Thomas, Forschungsmethoden der Wirtschaftsinfor­matik. Eine empirische Untersuchung, Wirtschaftsinformatik, vol. 49 no. 4, 2007, 280 ff.

Hilti Christian/Pedrazzini Mario M., Europäisches und Schweizerisches Patent- und Prozessrecht, 3rd edition, Bern 2008.

Hilty Reto M., Der Schutz von Computerprogrammen – nationale und internationale Normen auf dem Prüfstand des Internets, sic!, 1997, pp. 128 ff., cited as Hilty (1997).

Hilty Reto M., Urheberrecht, Bern 2011, cited as Hilty (2010).

Hilty Reto M., Softwareurheberrecht statt Softwarepatente? Forderungen der deutschen Politik unter der Lupe, in: Alexander Ch./Bornkamm J./Buchner B./Fritzche J./Lettl T., Festschrift für Helmut Köhler zum 70. Geburtstag, Munich 2014, pp. 289 ff., cited as Hilty (2014).

Hilty Reto M., Innovationsförderung durch Schutzbegrenzungen – ein Plädoyer für die Zwangslizenz, in: Grolimund P./Koller A./Loacker L. D./Portmann W., Fest Festschrift für Anton K. Schnyder zum 65. Geburtstag, Zurich 2018, pp. 1179 ff., cited as Hilty (2018).

Hilty Reto M./Geiger Christophe, Patenting Software? A Judicial and Socio-Economic Analysis, International Journal of Intellectual Property Management, Olney 2005, pp. 615 ff., cited as Hilty/Geiger (2005).

Hilty Reto M./Geiger Christophe, Towards a New Instrument of Protection for Software in the EU? Learning the Lessons from the Harmonization Failure of Software Patentability, in: Ghidini G./Arezzo E. (eds.), Biotechnology aAnd Software Patent Law – A Comparative Review of New Developments, Cheltenham UK/Northhampton (MA) 2011, pp. 153 ff., cited as Hilty/Geiger (2011).

Hilty Reto M./Koeklue Kaya, Reichweite des Rechtsschutzes von Computerprogrammen – Eine Kritik an der EuGH-Rechtsprechung, in: Buescher W./Erdmann W./Haedicke M./Koehler H. Loschelder M. (eds.), Festschrift für Joachim Bornkamm zum 65. Geburtstag, Munich 2014, pp. 797 ff.

Hilty Reto M./Slowinski Peter R., Standardessentielle Patente – Perspektiven ausserhalb des Kartellrechts, GRUR International, 2015, pp. 781 ff.

Hoepfl Marie C., Choosing Qualitative Research: A Primer for Technology Education Researchers, Journal of Technology Education, vol. 9 no. 1, 1997, pp. 47 ff.

Hoeren Thomas, Internetrecht, 3rd edition, Cologne 2018.

Hommel Guenter/Jaehnichen Stefan/Koster Cornelis H. A., Methodisches Programmieren, Berlin/New York 1983, cited as Hommel et al.

Hopf Christel, Die Pseudo-Exploration – Überlegungen zur Technik qualitativer Interviews in der Sozialforschung, Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, vol. 7 no. 2, 1978, pp. 97 ff.

Horns Axel, Anmerkungen zu begrifflichen Fragen des Softwareschutzes, GRUR, 2001, pp. 1 ff.

Humble Jez/Farley David, Continuous Delivery: Reliable Software Releases through Build, Test, and Deployment Automation, Boston 2011.

Jaenich Michael, Sonderrechtsschutz für geschäftliche Methoden, GRUR, 2003, pp. 483 ff.

Jersch Ralf, Ergänzender Leistungsschutz und Computersoftware: Rechtsschutz für innovative Arbeitsergebnisse durch UWG und BGB, Dissertation at the Westfaelischen Wilhelms-University of Muenster, Schriftenreihe Recht und Computerpraxis, vol. 3, Munich 1993.

Kooths Stefan/Langenfurth Markus/Kalway Nadine, Open-SourceSoftware. Eine volkswirtschaftliche Bewertung, MICE Economic Research Studies, vol. 4, 2003, cited as Kooths et al.

Katz Michael L./Shapiro Carl, Systems Competition and Network Effects, Journal of Economic Perspectives, no, 2, Nashville 1994, pp. 93 ff.

Kawulich Barbara B., Participant Observation as a Data Collection Method, Forum Qualitative Social Research, vol. 6 no. 2, 2005, article 43.

Kindermann Manfred, Vertrieb und Nutzung von Computersoftware aus urheberrechtlicher Sicht, GRUR, 1983, pp. 150 ff.

Kitch Edmund W., The Nature and Function of the Patent System, The Journal of Law & Economics, vol. 20 no. 2, 1977, pp. 265 ff.

Klemperer Paul, How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?, The RAND Journal of Economics, vol. 21 no 1, 1990, pp. 113 ff.

Koehler Reimar, Der urheberrechtliche Schutz der Rechenprogramme, Urheberrechtliche Abhandlungen, vol. 8, Munich 1968.

Koerber Torsten, Abuse of a Dominant Position by Legal Actions of Owners of Standard-Essential Patents: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. ZTE Corp., Common Market Law Review, vol. 53 no. 4, 2016, pp. 1107 ff.

Koglin Olaf, Opensourcerecht. Die urheber- und schuldrechtlichen Beziehungen zwischen Lizenzgeber und Lizenznehmer bei Open Source Software am Beispiel der General Public License (GPL), in: Costede J./Spindler G., Schriften zum Wirtschafts- und Medienrecht, Steuerrecht und Zivilprozessrecht, vol. 31, Franfurt am Main 2007.

Koreimann Dieter S., Grundlagen der Software-Entwicklung, 3rd edition, Munich/Vienna/Oldenbourg 2000.

Krasser Rudolf, Erweiterung des patentrechtlichen Erfindungsbegriffs?, GRUR, 2001, pp. 959 ff.

Kribber Klaus-Dieter, Berücksichtigung gewerblicher Schutzrechte in Softwareentwicklungsprojekten, Fachberichte des Fachbereichs Elektrotechnik, vol. 1, 1998, found online on <https://www.yumpu.com/de/document/read/5858593/berucksichtigung-gewerblicher-schutzrechte-in-software-> (retrieved September 6, 2021).

Krueger Charles W., Software Reuse, ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 24 no. 2, 1992, pp. 131 ff.

Krueger Wilhelm/Pfeiffer Peter, Eine konzeptionelle und empirische Analyse der Informationsstrategien und der Aufgaben des Informationsmanagements, Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, vol. 43, 1991, pp. 21 ff.

Kummer Max, Das urheberrechtlich schützbare Werk, Berne 1968.

Kur Annette, Auswirkungen des neuen Geschmacksmusterrecht auf die Praxis, GRUR, 2002, pp. 661 ff., cited as Kur (2002).

Kur Annette, Protection of Graphical User Interfaces Under European Design Legislation, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol. 34 no. 1, 2003, pp. 50 ff. cited as Kur (2003).

Landes William M./Posner Richard A., An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law, The Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 18 no. 2, 1989, pp. 325 ff., cited as Landes/Posner (1989).

Landes William M./Posner Richard A., The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law, Cambridge (MA) 2003, cited as Landes/Posner (2003).

Lang Johannes, Patent Protection for E-Commerce Methods in Europe, Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, vol. 6 no. 5, 2000, pp. 117 ff.

Langley Ann, Strategies for Theorizing From Process Data, The Academy of Management Review, vol. 24 no. 4, 1999, pp. 691 ff.

Larman Craig/Basili Victor R., Iterative and Incremental Development: A Brief History, IEEE Computer Society Press, vol. 36 no. 6, 2003, pp. 47 ff.

Laurie Ronald S., Patentability of Computer Programs in the USA, in: Meijboom A., The Law of Information Technology in Europe: A Comparison with the USA, Deventer 1991.

Lehmann Michael, Der Rechtsschutz von Computerprogrammen in Deutschland, NJW, 1988, pp. 2419 ff., cited as Lehmann (1988).

Lemley Mark A., Convergence in the Law of Software Copyright, Berkeley Technology Law Review, vol. 10 no. 1, 1995, pp. 1 ff., cited as Lemley (1995).

Lemley Mark A., Intellectual Property Rights and Standard-Setting Organizations, California Law Review, vol. 90 no. 6, pp. 1889 ff., cited as Lemley (2002).

Lemley Mark A., Software Patents and the Return of Functional Claiming, Wisconsin Law Review, 2013, pp. 905 ff., cited as Lemley (2013).

Lemley Mark A./Burk Dan L., Designing optimal software patents, in: Hahn R. (ed.), Intellectual Property Rights in Frontier Industries: Software and Biotechnology, Washington (DC) 2005, pp. 81 ff.

Lemley Mark A./Shapiro Carl, A Simple Approach to Setting Reasonable Royalties for Standards-Essential Patents, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, vol. 28, 2013, pp. 1135 ff.

Lemley Mark A./Menell Peter S./Merges Robert P./Samuelson Pamela/Carver Brian W., Software & Internet Law, 4th edition, New York 2011, cited as Lemley et al.

Lessig Lawrence, The Limits in Open Code: Regulatory Standards and the Future of the Net, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, vol. 14, 1999, pp. 759 ff.

Liebold Renate/Trinczek Rainer, Experteninterview, in: Kuehl St./Strodtholz P./Taffertshofer A. (eds.), Handbuch Methoden der Organisationsforschung. Quantitative und Qualitative Methoden, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 32 ff.

Lincoln Yvonna S./Guba Egon G., Naturalistic Inquiry, Thousand Oaks 1985.

Littig Beate, Interviews mit Eliten – Interviews mit ExpertInnen: Gibt es Unterschiede?, in: Bogner A./Littig B./Menz W. (eds.), Experteninterviews. Theorien, Methoden, Anwendungsfelder, 3rd edition, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 61 ff.

Lueck Gert, Rechtsschutz und Vertragsgestaltung bei Computer-Software aus Schweizer Sicht, Schriften zum Medien- und Immaterialgüterrecht, vol. 1, 1986, pp. 17 ff.

Lutz Martin Johannes, Der Schutz der Computerprogramme in der Schweiz, GRUR International, 1993, pp. 653 ff.

Machlup Fritz, Die wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen des Patentrechts, GRUR Ausland, 1961, pp. 373 ff.

Mamane David, Das kartellrechtliche Damoklesschwert über dem Immaterialgüterrecht, in: Olano O. (ed.), Liber amicorum für Felix. H. Thomann zum 80. Geburtstag, Zurich 2016, pp. 27 ff.

Marbach Eugen/Ducrey Patrik/Wild Gregor, Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht, 4th Edition, Berne 2017.

Marly Jochen, Praxishandbuch Softwarerecht: Rechtsschutz und Vertragsgestaltung, 7th edition, Munich 2018.

Marshall Catherine/Rossmann Gretchen B., Designing Qualitative Research, 6th edition, Los Angeles 2016.

Mathematical Programming Society, Report of the Committee on Algorithms and the Law, Optima, vol. 33 no. 2, 1991, pp. 1 ff.

Maume Philipp, HUAWEI/ZTE, or: How the CJEU Closed the Orange Book, Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, vol. 6 no. 2, 2016, pp. 207 ff.

Maynard Jeff, Modular Programming, London 1972.

Mayring Philipp, Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung, 6th edition, Weinheim 2016, as well as 3rd edition, Weinheim 1996, if specially referred to.

McConnell Steve, Rapid Development: Taming Wild Software Schedules, Washington (DC) 1996.

McGahn Donald F., Copyright Infringement of Protected Computer Software: An Analytical Method to Determine Substantial Similarity, Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, vol. 21, 1995, pp. 88 ff.

McGarry Daniel D., The Metalogicon of John Salisbury: A Twelfth-Century Defense of the Verbal and Logical Arts of the Trivium, Berkeley 1956.

Melullis Klaus-Juergen, Zur Sonderrechtsfähigkeit von Computerprogrammen, in: Ann Ch./Anders W./Dreiss U./Jestaedt B./Stauder D. (eds.), Materielles Patentrecht – Festschrift für Reiman König zum 70. Geburtstag, Cologne/Berlin/Bonn/Munich 2003, pp. 341 ff.

Merges Robert, As Many as Six Impossible Patents Before Breakfast: Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, vol. 14, 1999, pp. 577 ff.

Merges Robert/Nelson Richard, On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope, Columbia Law Review, vol. 90 no. 4, 1990, pp. 839 ff.

Merton Robert/Kendall Patricia, The Focused Interview, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 51 no. 6, 1946, pp. 541 ff.

Metzger Axel/Jaeger Till, Open Content-Lizenzen nach deutschem Recht, MMR, 2003, 431 ff.

Meuser Michael/Nagel Ulrike, Expertenwissen und Experteninterview, in: Hitzler R./Honer A./Maeder Ch. (eds.), Expertenwissen: die institutionalisierte Kompetenz zur Konstruktion von Wirklichkeit, Opladen 1994, pp. 180 ff., cited as Meuser/Nagel (1994).

Meuser Michael/Nagel Ulrike, ExpertInneninterviews – vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. Ein Beitrag zur Methodendiskussion, in: Bogner A./Littig B./Menz W. (eds.), Das Experteninterview. Theorie, Methode, Anwendung, 2nd edition (not included in the 3rd edition of the book), Wiesbaden 2005, pp. 71 ff., cited as Meuser/Nagel (2005).

Meuser Michael/Nagel Ulrike, Das Experteninterview – konzeptionelle Grundlagen und methodische Anlage, in: Pickel S./Pickel G./Lauth H.-J./Jahn D. (eds.), Methoden der vergleichende Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 465 ff., cited as Meuser/Nagel (2009).

Meuser Michael/Nagel Ulrike, Das Experteninterview – Wissenssoziologische Voraussetzungen und methodische Durchführung, in: Friebertshäuser B. (ed.), Handbuch Qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft, 4th edition, Weinheim 2013, pp. 457 ff., cited as Meuser/Nagel (2013).

Mieg Harald/Brunner Beat, Experteninterviews: Reflexionen zur Methodologie und Erhebungstechnik, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, vol. 30 no. 2, 2004, pp. 199 ff.

Moehring Philipp, Die Schutzfähigkeit von Programmen für Datenverarbeitungsmaschinen, GRUR, 1967, pp. 269 ff.

Mooers Calvin N., Computer Software and Copyright, ACM Computing Survey, vol. 7 no. 1, 1975, pp. 45 ff.

Morgan Chris/Lanford David, Facts and Fallacies, London 1981.

Morse, Janice M./Field Peggy A., Nursing Research: The Application of Qualitative Approaches, Cheltenham 1995.

Mott Kelsey M., The Concept of the Small Patent in European Legal Systems and Equivalent Protection under United States Law, Virginia Law Review, vol. 49 no. 2 1963 Charlottesville, pp. 232 ff.

Millson Murray/Wilemon David, The Strategy of Managing Innovation and Technology, Upper Saddle River (NJ) 2008.

Mueller Barbara K./Oertli Reinhard, Urheberrechtsgesetz (URG), Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte. Mit Ausblick auf das EU-Recht, deutsches Recht, Staatsverträge und die internationale Rechtsentwicklung, 2nd edition, Berne 2012, cited as Staempfli Commentary to the Swiss CopA (editor).

Murer Angelika/Zurmuehle Sarah, Die Bedeutung digitaler Daten in der Fusionskontrolle anhand der Unternehmensübernahmen durch Google und Facebook, in: Epiney A./Kern M./Hehemann L., Schweizerisches Jahrbuch für Europarecht/Annuaire Suisse de Droit Européen 2014/2015, Zurich 2015, pp. 455 ff.

Neff Emil F./Arn Matthias, Urheberrecht im EDV-Bereich, in: David L./von Bueren R. (eds.), SIWR II/2, Basel/Geneva/Munich 1998.

Newell Allen, Response: The Models Are Broken, the Models Are Broken!, Pittsburgh University Law Review, vol. 47, Pittsburgh 1986, pp. 1023 ff.

Newman Max H. A., Alan Mathison Turing: 1912-1954, in: Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, vol. 1, London 1955, pp. 253 ff.

Nimmer Melville B./Nimmer David, Nimmer on Copyright, vol. 6, New Providence (NJ) 2014, cited as Nimmer/Nimmer (2014).

Nimmer Melville B./Nimmer David, Nimmer on Copyright, vol. 1, New Providence (NJ) 2016, cited as Nimmer/Nimmer (2016).

Nimmer David/Bernacchi Richard L./Frischling Gary N., A Structured Approach to Analyzing the Substantial Similarity of Computer Software in Copyright Infringement Cases, Arizona State Law Review, vol. 20, 1988, pp. 625 ff.

Nordhaus William D, Theory of Innovation. An Economic Theory of Technological Change, The American Economic Review, vol. 59 no. 2, 1969, pp. 18 ff.

Noth Michael/Buehler Gregor/Thouvenin Florent, Markenschutzgesetz (MSchG), 2nd edition, Berne 2017, cited as Staempfli Commentary to the Swiss MSchG (editor).

Offut Jeff, Quality Attributes of Web Software Applications, IEEE Computer Society Press, vol. 19 no. 2, 2002, pp. 25 ff.

Ogilvie John W., Defining Computer Program Parts Under Learned Hand’s Abstractions Test in Software Copyright Infringement Cases, Michigan Law Review, vol. 91 no. 3, 1992, pp. 526 ff.

Ohly Ansgar, Software und Geschäftsmethoden im Patentrecht, in: Bauknecht K./Forstmoser P./Zehnder C. A., Computer und Recht, vol. 17 no. 12, 2001, pp. 809 ff.

Osterrieth Christian, Technischer Fortschritt – eine Herausforderung für das Patentrecht? Zum Gebot der Verhältnismäßigkeit beim patentrechtlichen Unterlassungsanspruch, GRUR, 2018, pp. 985 ff.

Patton Michael Quinn, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 3rd edition, Thousand Oaks 2002.

Perelman Bruce, Proving Copyright Infringement of Computer Software: An Analytical Framework, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, vol. 18, 1985, pp. 919 ff.

Pfadenhauer Michaela, Das Experteninterview. Ein Gespräch zwischen Experte und Quasi-Experte, in: Bogner A./Littig B./Menz W. (eds.), Experteninterview. Theorie, Methode, Anwendungsfelder, 3rd edition, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 99 ff.

Pfeiffer Axel, Zur Diskussion der Softwareregelungen im Patentrecht. Zum Ausschluss von „Programmen für Datenverarbeitungsanlagen… als solche” von der Patentfähigkeit, GRUR, 2003, 581 ff.

Picht Peter Georg, FRAND wars 2.0 – Rechtsprechung im Anschluss an die Huawei/ZTE-Entscheidung des EuGH (Teil 1), Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, vol. 68 no. 5, 2018, pp. 234 ff., cited as Picht (2018a).

Picht Peter Georg, FRAND wars 2.0 – Rechtsprechung im Anschluss an die Huawei/ZTE-Entscheidung des EuGH (Teil 2), Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, vol. 68 no. 6, 2018, pp. 300 ff., cited as Picht (2018b).

Pickel Gert, Der Einbezug des Indificuums in die Länderanalyse – Umfrageforschung und vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, in: Pickel S./Pickel G./Lauth H.-J./Jahn D. (eds.), Methoden der vergleichende Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 297 ff.

Pickel Gert/Pickel Susanne, Qualitative Interviews als Verfahren des Ländervergleichs, in: Pickel S./Pickel G./Lauth H.-J./Jahn D. (eds.), Methoden der vergleichende Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 441 ff.

Pickel Susanne, Die Triangulation als Methode in der Politikwissenschaft, in: Pickel S./Pickel G./ Lauth H.-J./Jahn D. (eds.), Methoden der vergleichende Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 517 ff.

Pinheiro John/Lacroix Gerard, Protecting the Look and Feel of Computer Software, High Technology Law Journal, vol. 1, 1986, pp. 411 ff.

Ragavan Srividhya/Murphy Brendan/Davé Raj, FRAND v. Compulsory Licensing: The Lesser of the Two Evils, Duke Law & Technology Review, vol. 14 no. 1, 2016, pp. 83 ff.

Randell Brian, On Alan Turing and the Origins of Digital Computers, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, Computing Laboratory, Newcastle 1972.

Rauber Georg, Der urheberrechtliche Schutz von Computerprogrammen, in: Bauknecht K./Forstmoser P./Zehnder C. A., Computer und Recht, vol. 17, Zurich 1988, cited as Rauber (1988).

Rauber Georg, Inhalt und Schranken des urheberrechtlichen Softwareschutzes, in: Software-Schutz. Software-Haftung, vol. 9, Schriftenreihe SAV, Zurich 1992, pp. 33 ff., cited as Rauber (1992).

Rauber Georg, Lauterkeitsrechtlicher Softwareschutz, in: Thomann F. H./Rauber G. (eds.), Softwareschutz, Bern 1998, pp. 1 ff., cited as Rauber (1998).

Rehbinder Manfred/Viganò Adriano, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte mit ausführenden Verordnungen, Nebengesetzen, zwischenstaatlichen Verträgen, 3rd edition, Zurich 2008.

Reichman Jerome H., Legal Hybrids Between the Patent and Copyright Paradigms, Columbia Law Review, vol. 94 no. 8, 1994, pp. 2432 ff.

Rihoux BenoÎt, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques: Recent Advances and Challenges, in: Pickel S./Pickel G./Lauth H.-J./Jahn D. (eds.), Methoden der vergleichende Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 365 ff.

Rossnagel Alexander, Rechtswissenschaftliche Technikfolgenforschung. Umrisse einer Forschungsdisziplin, Baden-Baden 1993.

Royce Winston W., Managing the Development of Large Software Systems: Concepts and Techniques, Proceedings IEEE WESCON, vol. 26 no. 8, 1970, pp. 1 ff.

Rueesch Corinna, Die Weitergabe von Standard-Software, in: Bauknecht K./Forstmoser P./Zehnder C. A., Computer und Recht, vol. 18, Zurich 1988.

Samuelson Pamela, Does Copyright Protection Under the EU Software Directive Extend to Computer Program Behavior, Languages and Interfaces?, European Intellectual Property Review, February, 2012, pp. 158 ff., cited as Samuelson (2012).

Samuelson Pamela, Is Software Patentable?, Communications of the ACM, vol. 56 no. 11, 2013, pp. 23 ff., cited as Samuelson (2013).

Samuelson Pamela, Reconceptualizing Copyright’s Merger Doctrine, Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A., vol. 63, 2016, pp. 417 ff., cited as Samuelson (2016).

Samuelson Pamela, Functionality and Expression in Computer Programs: Refining the Tests for Software Copyright Infringement, Berkeley Technology Law Review, vol. 31 no. 3, 2017, pp. 1215 ff., cited as Samuelson (2017a).

Samuelson Pamela, Strategies for Discerning the Boundaries of Copyright and Patent Protections, Notre Dame Law Review, vol. 92 no. 4, 2017, pp. 1493 ff., cited as Samuelson (2017b).

Samuelson Pamela/Davis Randall/Kapor Mitchell D. Reichman Jerome H., A Manifesto Concerning the Legal Protection of Computer Programs, Columbia Law Review, vol. 94, 1994, pp. 2308 ff. (Samuelson et al.)

Samuelson Pamela/Scotchmer Suzanne, The Law and Economics of Reverse Engineering, Yale Law Journal, vol. 111 no. 7, 2002, pp. 1575 ff.

Scherer Frederic M., Nordhaus’ Theory of Optimal Patent Life: A Geometric Reinterpretation, The American Economic Review, vol. 62 no. 3, 1972, pp. 422 ff.

Schiffner Thomas, Open Source Software, Freie Software im deutschen Urheber- und Vertragsrecht, Munich 2003.

Schricker Gerhard/Loewenheim Ulrich, Urheberrecht Kommentar, 5th edition, Munich 2017, cited as Commentary to the German UrhG (editor).

Schwabach Aaron, Internet and the Law: Technology, Society, and Compromises, Santa Barbara 2014.

Scotchmer Suzanne, Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 5 no. 1, 1991, pp. 29 ff., cited as Scotchmer (1991).

Scotchmer Suzanne, Innovation and Incentives, Cambridge (MA) 2006, cited as Scotchmer (2006).

Schlatter Sibylle, Der Rechtsschutz von Computerspielen, Benutzeroberflaächen und Computerkunst, in: Lehmann M. (ed.), Rechtsschutz und Verwertung von Computerprogrammen, 2nd edition, Cologne 1993, pp. 169 ff.

Schmidt Douglas C., Model-Driven Engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, vol. 39 no. 2, 2006, pp. 25 ff.

Schoelch Guenther, Patentschutz für computerimplementierte Entwurfsmethoden – Ein Kulturbruch?, GRUR, 2006, pp. 969 ff.

Schuetz Alfred, Der gut informierte Bürger, in: Brodersen A. (ed.), Alfred Schütz. Gesammelte Aufsätze, vol. 2, The Hague 1972, pp. 85 ff.

Schuetz Fritz/Meinefeld Werner/Springer Werner/Weymann Ansgar, Grundlagentheoretische Voraussetzungen methodisch kontrollierten Fremdverstehens, in: Arbeitsgruppe Bielefelder Soziologen (eds.), Alltagswissen, Interaktion und gesellschaftliche Wirklichkeit, vol. 2, Wiesbaden 1980, pp. 433 ff., cited as Schuetz et al.

Schuhmacher Dirk, Schutz von Algorithmen für Computerprogramme, Schriften zum Informations-, Telekommunikations- und Medienrecht, vol. 27, Muenster 2004.

Schulze Gernot, Urheberrechtsschutz von Computerprogrammen – geklärte Rechtsfrage oder blosse Illusion?, GRUR, 1985, pp. 997 ff.

Schwaber Ken, Scrum Development Process, in: Sutherland J.V./Patel D./Casanave C./Miller J./Hollowell G. (eds.), Business Object Design and Implementation, London 1997, pp. 117 ff.

Schwaber Ken/Beedle Mike, Agile Software Development with Scrum, Aurora (IL) 2001.

Schwarz Claudia/Kruspig Sabine, Computerimplementierte Erfindungen – Patentschutz von Software?, 2nd edition, Cologne 2018.

Seale Clive, The Quality of Qualitative Research, Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 5 no. 4, 1999, pp. 465 ff.

Shapiro Carl, Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting, Innovation Policy and the Economy, vol. 1, 2001, pp. 119 ff.

Singer Friedemann, Programmieren in der Praxis, 2nd edition, Stuttgart 1984.

Slongo Doris, Der Softwareherstellungsvertrag, in: Bauknecht K./Forstmoser P./Zehnder C. A., Computer und Recht, vol. 21, Zurich 1991.

Smith Preston G., Accelerated Product Development: Techniques and Traps, in Kahn K. B. (ed), The PDMA Handbook of New Product Development, 2nd edition (not included in the 3rd edition of the book), Hoboken 2004, pp. 173 ff.

Sommerville Ian, Software-Engineering, 10th edition, Harlow 2016, as well as 4th edition published in 1992 in Wokingham where particularly referred to.

Spindler Gerald, Rechtsfragen der Open Source, Cologne 2004.

Staffelbach Oliver, die Dekompilierung von Computerprogrammen gemäss Art. 21 URG, Dissertation at the University of Zurich, Berne 2003.

Steinke Ines, Gütekriterien qualitativer Forschung, in: Flick U./von Kardorff E./ Steinke I. (eds.): Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch, 11th edition, Reinbek b. Hamburg 2015, pp. 319 ff.

Stigler Rachel, Ooey GUI: The Messy Protection of Graphical User Interfaces, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, vol. 12 no. 3, 2014, pp. 215 ff.

Straub Wolfgang, Der Sourcecode von Computerprogrammen im schweizerischen Recht und in der EU-Richtlinie über den Rechtsschutz von Computerprogrammen, Archiv für Urheber- und Medienrecht, vol. III, Bern 2001, pp. 807 ff., cited as Straub (2001a).

Straub Wolfgang, Individualität als Schlüsselkriterium des Urheberrechts, GRUR Int, 2001, pp. 1 ff., cited as Straub (2001b).

Straub Wolfgang, Software im System des Immaterialgüterrechts, Jusletter, publication of 16. April 2002, cited as Straub (2002).

Straub Wolfgang, L’ingénierie inverse et la propriété intellectuelle, Zeitschrift für Schweizerisches Recht, vol. 122 no. I, 2003, pp. 3 ff., cited as Straub (2003).

Straub Wolfgang, Softwareschutz, Zurich/St. Gallen 2011, cited as Straub (2011).

Straub Wolfgang, Rechtlicher Schutz von Software-Entwicklungen, in: Weinmann C./Münch P./Herren J. (eds.), Schweizer IP-Handbuch. Intellectual Property – Konzepte, Checklisten und Musterdokumente für die Praxis, Basel 2013, pp. 287 ff., cited as Straub (2013).

Straub Wolfgang, Verträge für agil geführte Projekte, Jusletter, publication of 21. Dezember 2015, cited as Straub (2015).

Strauss Anselm, Qualitative Analysis. For Social Scientists, Cambridge (UK)/New York/Melbourne 1987/1988.

Stutz M. Robert/Beutler Stephan/Kuenzi Muriel (eds.), Designgesetz (DesG), Berne 2006, cited as Staempfli Commentary to the Swiss DesG (editor).

Swanson Guy E., Frameworks For Comparative Research: Structural Anthropology and the Theory of Action, in: Vallier I. (ed.), Comparative Methods in Sociology: Essays on Trends and Applications, Berkeley 1971, pp. 141 ff.

Swanson E. Burton/Dans Enrique, System Life Expectancy and the Maintenance Effort: Exploring their Equilibration, MIS Quarterly, vol. 24 no. 2, Minneapolis 2000, pp. 277 ff.

SwissQ, Trends und Benchmarks Studie Schweiz, Zurich/Berne 2019.

Takeuchi Hirotaka/Nonaka Ikujiro, The New New Product Development Game, Harvard Business Review, vol. 64 no. 1, Cambridge (MA) 1986, pp. 137 ff.

Tansey Oisín, Process Tracing and Elite Interviewing: A case for Non-Probability Sampling, in: Pickel S./Pickel G./Lauth H.-J./Jahn D. (eds.), Methoden der vergleichende Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 481 ff.

Thomann Felix H., Grundriss des Softwareschutzes, in: Bauknecht K./Forstmoser P./Zehnder C. A., Computer und Recht, vol. 24, Zurich 1992, cited as Thomann (1992).

Thomann Felix H., Softwareschutz durch das Urheberrecht, in: Thomann F. H./Rauber G. (eds.), Softwareschutz, Bern 1998, pp. 1 ff., cited as Thomann (1998).

Thouvenin Florent, Funktionale Systematisierung von Wettbewerbsrecht (UWG) und Immaterialgueterrechten, Dissertation at the University of Zurich, Zurich 2005, cited as Thouvenin (2005).

Thouvenin Florent, Offenbarung und Ausführbarkeit – Ein auseinander zu haltendes Paar House of Lords – Synthon BV v. Smithkline Beecham plc, Opinions of the Lords of Appeal for Judgment in the Cause, October 20, 2005, sic!, 2006, pp. 362 ff., cited as Thouvenin (2006).

Thouvenin Florent, Patentierung von Geschäftsmethoden und Computerprogrammen: The English Approach: Court of Appeal (Civil Division) – Aerotel Ltd. vs. Telco Holdings Ltd., Telco Global Distribution Ltd. and Telco Global Ltd., and in the matter of patent applicaton GB 0314464.9 in the name of Neal William Macrossan, both on appeal from the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (Patents Court), October 27, 2006, sic!, 2007, pp. 664 ff., cited as Thouvenin (2007).

Thouvenin Florent, Irrtum: Je kleiner der Gesttaltungsspielraum, desto eher sind die Schutzvoraussetzungen erfüllt, in: Berger M./Macchiacchini S. (eds), Populäre Irrtümer im Urheberrecht, Festschrift für Reto M. Hilty, Zurich 2008, pp. 61 ff., cited as Thouvenin (2008a).

Thouvenin Florent, Microsoft: Offene Schnittstellen – offene Märkte? Urteil des EuGH vom 17. September 2007. Microsoft vs. Europäische Kommission (T-201/04), sic!, 2008, pp. 469 ff., cited as Thouvenin (2008b).

Thouvenin Florent, Computerimplementierte Erfindungen: Status quo im im Europäischen Patentrecht – Entscheidung der Grossen Beschwerdekammer des Europäischen Patentamtes vom 12. Mai 2010 (G 3/08), sic!, 2010, pp. 808 ff., cited as Thouvenin (2010).

Thouvenin Florent/Berger Mathis, Kapitel 6.2. Patentrecht, Kapitel 6.1. Urheberrecht, Kapitel 6.4. Wettbewerbsrecht (UWG), Kapitel 6.6. Markenrecht, in: WEKA, Informatikrecht für die Praxis (Loseblatt), Zurich 2005.

Tom Willard K./Newberg Joshua, Antitrust and Intellectual Property: From Separate Spheres to Unified Field, vol. 66, 1997, pp. 167 ff.

Troller Alois, Urheberrecht und Ontologie, UFITA, vol. 50, 1967, pp. 385 ff., cited as Troller (1967).

Troller Alois, Immaterialgüterrecht: Patentrecht, Markenrecht, Muster- und Modellrecht, Urheberrecht, Wettbewerbsrecht, vol. 1, 3rd edition, Basel 1983, cited as Troller (1983).

Troller Alois, Immaterialgüterrecht: Patentrecht, Markenrecht, Muster- und Modellrecht, Urheberrecht, Wettbewerbsrecht, vol. 2, 3rd edition, Basel 1985, cited as Troller (1985).

Ullrich Hanns, Technologieschutz nach TRIPS: Prinzipien und Probleme, GRUR Int., 1995, pp. 623 ff., cited as Ullrich (1995).

Ullrich Hanns, Lizenzkartellrecht auf dem Weg zur Mitte, GRUR Int., 1996, pp. 555 ff., cited as Ullrich (1996).

Ullrich Hanns/Heinemann Andreas, Abschnitt VII. Immaterialgüterrecht, Teil B: Die Anwendung der Wettbewerbsregeln auf die Verwertung von Schutzrechten und sonst geschützten Kenntnissen, in: Immenga U./Mestmaecker E.-J. (Eds.), Wettbewerbsrecht, vol. 1, 5th edition (no included in 6th edition), Munich 2011, pp. 1668 ff.

Ulmer Eugen, Der Urheberrechtsschutz wissenschaftlicher Werke unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Programme elektronischer Rechenanlagen, in: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch Historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, vol. 1., Munich 1967, pp. 3 ff.

Vogel Berthold, Wenn der Eisberg zu schmelzen beginnt… – Einige Reflexionen über den Stellenwert und die Probleme des Experteninterviews in der Praxis der empirischen Sozialforschung, in: Brinkmann Ch./Deeke A./Völkel B. (eds.), Experteninterviews in der Arbeitsmarktforschung, Nuernberg 1995, pp. 73 ff.

von Bueren Roland/Meer Michael A., Der Werkbegriff, in: David L./von Bueren R. (eds.), SIWR II/1, Basel/Geneva/Munich 2014, pp. 58 ff.

Von Lewinski Silke, Der EG-Richtlinienvorschlag zur Harmonisierung der Schutzdauer im Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrecht, GRUR Int., 1992, pp 724 ff.

von Weizsaecker Carl Christian, Rechte und Verhältnisse in der modernen Wirtschaftslehre, Kyklos, vol. 34 no. 3, 1981, pp. 345 ff.

Walker Victor, Developments in the Concept of a Patentable Invention in USA and Europa: Computer Programs and Methods of Doing Business, Zurich 2001.

Waller Spencer Weber, Antitrust and Social Networking, North Carolina Law Review, no. 90, 2011, pp. 1771 ff.

Waltl Peter, Geschützte und nicht geschützte Computerprogramme, Berlin 1990.

Wandtke Artur-Axel/Bullinger Winfried, Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrechtsgesetz, 4th edition, Munich 2014, cited as Wandtke/Bullinger (editor).

Webster Jane/Watson Richard T., Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review, Management Information System Quarterly, vol. 26 no. 2, 2002, pp. xiii ff.

Welch Andreas/Mueller Christoph, Patente – Quo vadis? – Eine Erwiderung, sic!, 2002, 290 ff.

Wen Lian/Tuffley David/Rout Terry, Using Composition Trees to Model and Compare Software Process, in: O’Connor R./Rout T./McCaffery F./Dorling A. (ed.), Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination: 11th International Conference, Heidelberg 2011, pp. 1 ff.

Wiebe Andreas, Know-how-Schutz von Computersoftware: eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung der wettbewerbsrechtlichen Schutzmöglichkeiten in Deutschland und den USA, Munich 1993.

Wickihalder Urs, Entwicklungen im Bereich der Patentierung von computergestützten Erfindungen, sic!, 2002, pp. 579 ff.

Widmer Ursula, Der urheberrechtliche Schutz von Computerprogrammen, Zeitschrift für Schweizerisches Recht, 1993, vol. 1, pp. 247 ff.

Wirth Niklaus, Program Development by Stepwise Refinement, Communications of the ACM, vol. 26 no. 1, 1983 (reprint of 1971), pp. 70 ff.

Wittmer Hans Rudolf, Der Schutz von Computersoftware – Urheberrecht oder Sonderrecht?, in: Reh-binder M./Larese W. (eds.), Schriften zum Medienrecht, vol. 6, Berne 1981.

Woestehoff Knut, Die First Sale Doktrin und der U.S.-amerikanische Softwaremarkt, Studien zum Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und zum Urheberrecht, vo. 47, Hamburg 2008.

Wolff Christian, Zwangslizenzen im Immaterialgüterrecht, Schriften zum deutschen und internationalen Persönlichkeits- und Immaterialgüterrecht, vol. 10, 2005 Goettingen.

Zehnder Carl August, Informatik-Projektentwicklung: Projekt, Anwendung, Nutzung, 4th edition, Zurich 2003.

Zelle Karl/Schlechtner Oswald/Schmid Franz, Algorithmen – Programme, Programmpakete: Eine Programmbibliothek für Wissenschaft und Verwaltung, Vienna/Munich 1975.

Zimmermann Philip R., Cryptography for the Internet, Scientific American, vol. 279 no. 4, 1998, pp. 110 ff.

Zirn Frank, Softwarerechtsschutz zwischen Urheberrecht und Patentrecht: Aktuelle Entwicklungen vor historischem Hintergrund und internationaler Zusammenhang, Dissertation at the Humboldt University Berlin, Stuttgart 2004.

Electronic Sources

AcclaimIP, 2015 US PATENTING STATISTICS, available at <http://www.acclaimip.com/2015-us-patenting-statistics/> (retrieved September 6, 2021).

The Agile Manifesto, published 2001, available at <http://agilemanifesto.org> (retrieved September 6, 2021).

Agrawal Shavak/Sankaran Anush/Laha Anirban/Chemmengath Saneem Ahmed/Shrivastava Disha/Sankaranarayanan Karthik, What is deemed computationally creative?, IBM Journal of Research & Development, vol. 1 no. 63, paper 3, available at <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=8645678&tag=1> (retrieved September 6, 2021), cited as Agrawal et al.

Bahir Dar University, Institute of Technology, School of computing and Electrical Engineering Computer Science Program, Industrial Project I, Car Rental and Online Reservation System. For Budget Car Rent (BRC) Bahir-Dar Branch, published on February 6, 2012, available at <https://www.academia.edu/3442775/Car_Rent_and_Online_Reservation_System> (retrieved September 6, 2021), cited as Bahir Dar University.

Bridging the Gap, “functional specification”, available at <http://www.bridging-the-gap.com/functional-specification/> (retrieved July September 6, 2021).

BSA-The Software Alliance, Global Software Survey 2018, available at <https://gss.bsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2018_BSA_GSS_Report_en.pdf> (retrieved September 6, 2021), cited as BSA-The Software Alliance, Global Software Survey.

BSA-The Software Alliance, Software: A €910 Billion Catalyst for the EU Economy, 2016, available at <https://softwareimpact.bsa.org/pdf/Economic_Impact_of_Software_Report.pdf> (retrieved September 6, 2021), cited as BSA-The Software Alliance, European Union.

BSA-The Software Alliance, The $1 Trillion Economic Impact of Software in the United States, 2016, available at <https://softwareimpact.bsa.org/pdf/Economic_Impact_of_Software_Report.pdf> (retrieved September 6, 2021), cited as BSA-The Software Alliance, United States.

The Business Dictionary:

–    “design thinking”, available at <http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/design-thinking.html> (retrieved July 27, 2019);

–    “electronic”, available at <http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/electronic.html> (retrieved July 27, 2019);

–    “system design”, available at <http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/system-design.html> (retrieved July 27, 2019);

–    “time to market”, available at <http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/time-to-market.html> (retrieved July 27, 2019).

Cambridge Dictionary, “computer”, available at <http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/computer> (retrieved July 27, 2019).

Caroli Paulo, Agile Bridge Analogy, published on July 21, 2008, available at <http://agiletips.blogspot.ch/2008/07/agile-bridge-analogy.html> (retrieved September 6, 2021).

CNET, Apple, Google lead tech takeover of top global brands, article published October 5, 2015, available at <http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-google-lead-tech-takeover-of-top-global-brands/> (retrieved September 6, 2021).

Computerhope, “update”, available at <https://www.computerhope.com/jargon/u/update.htm> (retrieved September 6, 2021).

Copeland Jack, Alan Turing: The Codebreaker Who Saved ‘Millions of Lives’, contribution published on June 19, 2012 on BBCNews, available at <http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18419691> (retrieved September 6, 2021).

Cornell University, Legal Information Institute, “contract”, available at <https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract> (retrieved September 6, 2021).

Dictionary.com, “database”, available at <https://www.dictionary.com/browse/database> (retrieved September 6, 2021).

Dreier Thomas