A “computer program” is a set of statements or instructions used directly or indirectly in a computer to bring about a certain result.

The Nigerian Copyrights Act (CA) and Patents and Designs Act (PDA) attempts to provide an umbrella for the protection of computer programs but they both fail to address their intrinsic nature.

Computer programs have a dual nature as both creative expressions and functional processes. This makes it complicating to categorize them under a specific type of intellectual property right (IPR).

The CA safeguards computer programs as literary works, with the emphasis being on protecting the expression of the ideas and not the functional nature of the idea.

This inherent nature of copyright presents a direct obstacle, given the fact that a programs’ value frequently resides exactly in its functionality and not in its expressive elements.

In the United States, the courts have adopted a test called the abstraction-filtration-comparison test to prove non-literal copying of computer programs. This test strives to separate protectable expression from unprotectable ideas at each level of abstraction of a computer program.

The court firstly analyses the program by breaking down each level of the build-up of the program. It then filters the parts that are expressions (copyright protected) from the ideas (copyright ineligible) on each level. The parts that are thus protectable are now compared with the infringing program to determine infringement.

Patent protection on the other hand comes with its own list of problems. Under the PDA, Computer program is protected if it satisfies the basic requirements of patentability.

However, a computer program is a combination of mathematical algorithm in form of codes. Mathematical algorithms do not meet the requirements of patentability set by the PDA as they cannot be used as a subject matter of a patent application. As such, using Patent to protect computer programs could also be invalid.

Learning from the European Union, they adopted a ‘technical character’ approach to patenting computer programs.

This approach gives computer programmers and programs developers the ability to protect their inventions as long as they provide a new technical solution to a technical problem.

What is thus being protected by the patent application is the additional technical means that a skilled person has used to solve the technical problem.

Examples of this are; enhancing or analysing digital audio, image or video, e.g. denoising, detecting persons in a digital image, estimating the quality of a transmitted digital audio signal; separating sources in speech signals; speech recognition, e.g. mapping a speech input to a text output,  optimising load distribution in a computer network.

Nonetheless, there are other IPR mechanisms that can be utilized to protect computer programs and promote innovations and creativity.

Graphic User Interface (GUIs) can be protected by industrial designs. Trade Secrets could be used to protect confidential business information that is not guarded under other IP platforms.

Confidentiality agreements can be drafted that would safeguard the company from having their source code leaked by an employee. Programmers can insert license restriction clauses in their licensing agreements. These restrictions can protect them from potential infringement.

Contractual measures can also be put in place to help protect the computer program from copying and infringement.

Emerging technologies have strained existing paradigms and as programs technologies evolve, legal systems are continuously faced with the problem of balancing the promotion of innovation with competition concerns.

In this regard, it will be crucial that Nigerian IP laws are reassessed to accommodate technological advancement whilst still maintaining the underlying worldwide principles of IP. By so doing, the country can exploit the opportunities that the advancement brings.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the complaint goes beyond intellectual property theft as Fintiv claims that Apple engaged in corporate racketeering, deliberately lifting confidential innovations from CorFire, a mobile wallet solutions provider Fintiv acquired in 2014. 

According to the lawsuit, Apple breached nondisclosure agreements and also recruited CorFire staff to facilitate the development of Apple Pay, which was launched globally in 2014.

The issue dates back to 2011 and 2012, when Apple allegedly held a series of meetings with CorFire and entered into non-disclosure agreements to explore licensing discussions. 

Rather than formalise a deal, Apple is accused of using those sessions to extract technical knowledge and later build its own product without compensation or credit.

“This is a case of corporate theft and racketeering of monumental proportions,” the suit reads. “Apple has generated billions of dollars in revenue without paying Fintiv a single penny.”

Fintiv’s legal team, led by veteran lawyer Marc Kasowitz, isn’t pulling any punches. In a statement accompanying the filing, Kasowitz declared: “This is one of the most egregious examples of corporate malfeasance I’ve seen in 45 years of legal practice.”

The lawsuit alleges violations of both federal and state-level statutes, including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Georgia’s state equivalent of the RICO statute, the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and Georgia’s Trade Secret Act. Apple stands as the sole defendant in the case.

A key element of Fintiv’s argument is that Apple formed what it calls an “association-in-fact enterprise” with top-tier banks and credit card companies, including JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, Visa, Mastercard, and American Express, to profit off the stolen technology. 

Fintiv insists these institutions have benefitted from Apple Pay transaction fees while being part of an informal commercial ecosystem rooted in misappropriated technology.

CorFire, originally based in Alpharetta, Georgia, developed mobile wallet infrastructure long before Apple’s first foray into the space. The lawsuit asserts that the similarities between CorFire’s proprietary solutions and the structure of Apple Pay are not coincidental, but the result of intentional reverse engineering of CorFire’s work.

Again, this new filing follows a separate legal setback for Fintiv. On August 4, a federal judge in Austin, Texas, dismissed a related patent infringement case Fintiv had filed against Apple. Fintiv has indicated plans to appeal that decision but appears to be moving its focus to the Georgia court, where CorFire’s legacy and intellectual property were originally based.

While Apple has yet to issue a public response, the case is already drawing attention due to its potential financial and reputational implications. Apple Pay remains a central component of the company’s services division, which has become a major revenue stream.

The lawsuit is registered as Fintiv Inc v Apple Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, No. 25-04413.

This case points to a more serious legal confrontation over how tech giants interact with smaller firms, especially in early-stage collaborations that never formalise into partnerships. 

Fintiv says Apple has followed this same pattern in other disputes, pointing to ongoing claims involving Masimo and Valencell, whose health-tracking technologies allegedly influenced the development of the Apple Watch.