Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Chinese Version)


algorithm, program algorithm, intellectual property right, regulatory exclusivity, quasi patent

Document Type

S & T and Society


Protection of algorithm by intellectual property is a powerful way to stimulate innovation and regulate the risk of the algorithm. Algorithm that can be protected by intellectual property right is the program algorithm, which is compiled in computer language, in the form of coded instruction sequence, run by the computer and produce independent rational value results. The article is combed out that there are drawbacks to the traditional path of IP to protect program algorithms:it has conflict between program algorithm and copyright law system; the trade secret path is at odds with program algorithmic governance; and program algorithm can hardly be identified as method invention and cannot apply the rule of method invention right. The article proposes it is the optimal approach of program algorithm intellectual property protection in intelligent society that, to construct the new program algorithm quasi patent right, with reference to the concept of quasi-patent right such as regulatory exclusive right, and to design the public review system, the equivalent infringement doctrine, the hierarchical protection period system, based on the technical characteristics of the algorithm itself.

First page


Last Page





Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences


1 沈世镒. 智能计算中的算法、原理和应用. 北京: 科学出版社, 2020: 191-192.

Shen S Y. Algorithms, Principles, and Applications in Intelligent Computing. Beijing: Science Press, 2020:191-192. (in Chinese)

2 Dasgupta S, Papadimitriou C, Vazirani U. 算法概论. 王沛, 唐扬斌, 刘齐军, 译. 北京: 清华大学出版社, 2017.

Dasgupta S, Papadimitriou C, Vazirani U. Introduction to Algorithms. Translated by Wang P, Tang Y B, Liu Q J. Beijing: Qinghua University Press, 2017. (in Chinese)

3 克里斯托弗·斯坦纳. 算法帝国. 李筱莹, 译. 北京: 人民邮电出版社, 2014: 42-43.

Steiner C. Automate This: How Algorithms Came to Rule Our World? Translated by Li X Y. Beijing: Posts & Telecom Press, 2014: 42-43. (in Chinese)

4 John S. Copyright or patent or both: An algorithmic approach to computer software protection. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 1991, 5(1): 145-150.

5 Allen C. Z. When is an algorithm invented—The need for a new paradigm for evaluating an algorithm for intellectual property protection. Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology, 2005, 15(2): 579-582.

6 United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. Masimo Corporation V. True Wearables, Inc. (2022-01-24)[2022-07- 16]. https://dwz.tax/gb8W.

7 李成. 人工智能歧视的法律治理. 中国法学, 2021, (2): 127- 147.

Li C. Legal governance of artificial intelligence discrimination. China Legal Science, 2021, (2): 127-147. (in Chinese)

8 马长山. 智慧社会背景下的“第四代人权”及其保障. 中国法学, 2019, (5): 5-24.

Ma C S. “Fourth generation human rights” and its safeguards in the context of smart society. China Legal Science, 2019, (5): 5-24. (in Chinese)

9 袁康. 可信算法的法律规制. 东方法学, 2021, (3): 5-21.

Yuan K. Legal regulation of trusted algorithms. Oriental Law, 2021, (3): 5-21. (in Chinese)

10 Julia P. Flawed Attempt to Make Algorithms Accountable. (2017-12-20)[2022-07-16]. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/new-york-citys-bold-flawed-attemptto-make-algorithms-accountable?source=search_google_dsa_paid&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI4b2Tlcmo9AIVZplmAh3bNgglEAAYASAAEgK4l_D_BwE.

11 汪庆华. 算法透明的多重维度和算法问责. 比较法研究, 2020, (6): 163-173.

Wang Q H. The multiple dimensions of algorithmic transparency and algorithmic accountability. Journal of Comparative Law, 2020, (6): 163-173. (in Chinese)

12 United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corporation. ( 1992- 05-05) [2022-07-15]. https://dwz.tax/gaYq.

13 崔国斌. 专利法上的抽象思想与具体技术——计算机程序算法的客体属性分析. 清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2005, (3): 37-51.

Cui G B. The boundary between tangible invention and abstract idea—An analysis of the patentablity of algorithm. Journal of Tsinghua University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 2005, (3): 37-51. (in Chinese)

14 蔡琳. 智能算法专利保护的制度探索. 西北工业大学学报 (社会科学版), 2019, (3): 103-111.

Cai L. The legal exploration of patent protection method for the artificial intelligence. Journal of Northwestern Polytechnical University (Social Sciences), 2019, (3): 103-111. (in Chinese)

15 J M 穆勒. 专利法(第三版) . 沈超, 李华, 吴晓辉, 等, 译. 北京: 知识产权出版社, 2013: 240-249.

Muller J M. Patent Law (the third edition). Translated by Shen C, Li H, Wu X H, et al. Beijing: Intellectual Property Publishing House, 2013: 240-249. (in Chinese)

16 梁志文. 管制性排他权:超越专利法的新发展. 法商研究, 2016, 33(2): 183-192.

Liang Z W. Regulatory exclusivity: New developments beyond patent law. Studies in Law and Business, 2016, 33(2): 183- 192. (in Chinese)

17 梁志文. 论算法排他权:破除算法偏见的路径选择. 政治与法律, 2020, (8): 94-106. (in Chinese) Liang Z W. On the exclusive right of algorithm: A new choice for correcting algorithmic bias. Political Science and Law, 2020, (8): 94-106. (in Chinese)

18 Eisenberg R S. Patent and regulatory exclusively// Danzon P, Nicholson S. Oxford Handbook on the Economics of the Biopharmaceutical Industry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012: 167-198.

19 Lietzan E. The myths of data exclusive. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 2016, 1(20): 91-164.

20 李明德. 美国知识产权法. 北京: 法律出版社, 2014: 95.

Li M D. American Intellectual Property Law. Beijing:Law Press, 2014: 95. (in Chinese).

21 Supreme Court of the United States. Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. v. Murphy. (1877-10-01)[2022-07-15]. https://dwz.tax/gb8Y.

22 Berlinski D. The Advert of the Algorithm: The 300-year Journey from an Idea to the Computer. New York: Mariner, 2001: 14.