---
esco_uri: http://data.europa.eu/esco/skill/2ad081e6-0a3f-4612-ac15-7ace75d39e26
esco_label: "intellectual property law"
relation: optional
onet_soc: 23-1011.00
source: stackexchange
confidence: high
qa_count: 5
generator: gemma3:27b (prompt-designed and spot-checked by Claude)
generated: 2026-07-10
---

# intellectual property law — Legal Counsel

As Legal Counsel, 'intellectual property law' isn’t about abstract rights – it’s about *risk management* for your company’s creations & usage of others'. Daily tasks revolve around advising on contracts (NDAs, licenses, SaaS agreements), reviewing marketing materials to avoid infringement claims, and handling disputes. You’ll be assessing the IP landscape before product launches, ensuring freedom-to-operate, and guiding developers on open source licensing. This means understanding not just patents & trademarks, but also *how* code is licensed (GPL, MIT, Apache) and the implications of incorporating third-party software – a single line of GPL code can unexpectedly 'viralize' your entire application if you’re distributing it.

Tools include license compliance scanners (like Black Duck or FOSSA), trademark databases (USPTO, WIPO), and contract management systems. A key pitfall is assuming ‘inspiration’ equals legality; simply re-implementing existing code to avoid a license isn't permissible – courts will look at whether it constitutes a derivative work. Similarly, failing to properly declare licenses in package managers (npm, Maven) can lead to legal issues. 'All Rights Reserved' isn't enough; you need SPDX identifiers or clear licensing files.

Good looks like proactively identifying IP risks *before* they become problems. It’s about building a culture of IP awareness within the company – educating developers on best practices for open source usage, ensuring proper documentation of internal inventions, and establishing clear ownership of created works. This isn't just reactive defense; it's also about strategically leveraging your company's IP portfolio to gain competitive advantage.

Finally, remember that 'intellectual property law' is constantly evolving, especially in the digital realm. Staying current on case law related to software licensing, AI-generated content, and data protection is crucial. You need to be able to translate complex legal concepts into practical advice for both technical and business stakeholders.

## Praxiswissen (Stack Exchange, CC-BY-SA 4.0)

**The user wants to understand the implications of using GPL-licensed software (specifically GeSHi) within a commercial PHP framework, focusing on whether their own code needs to be open-sourced based on usage and distribution scenarios.**

Using GPL software creates a 'viral' effect: if you distribute an application that *includes* or links to GPL code – even without modifying it – you are legally obligated to release the source code of your entire application under the GPL as well. Modification doesn’t change this requirement; instead, any modifications must also be released under the GPL. While internal use avoids these obligations, distribution triggers them regardless of whether a fee is charged.

*Source: [Can I use GPL software in a commercial application](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/47032) — answer by quickly_now, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker wants to know if they can legally use code from an open-source project (GPL/LGPL licensed) in their closed-source iPhone app by completely rewriting it in a different language, line by line.**

Intentionally recreating existing code with minor alterations solely to avoid licensing obligations is likely illegal and will be seen as creating a derivative work. While understanding an algorithm isn't restricted, directly translating its implementation – especially when done by the same person – strongly suggests copying. To legitimately adapt open-source software without triggering license requirements, organizations employ 'clean room' development where different teams handle analysis and reimplementation to ensure independence.

*Source: [Is it possible to rewrite every line of an open source project in a slightly dif](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/86754) — answer by Kilian Foth, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user needs to specify a license in their `package.json` file for proprietary software where they retain all rights, but can't find an appropriate SPDX identifier.**

Modern package managers like npm require specific license declarations; 'All Rights Reserved' doesn’t translate directly into an SPDX-compatible acronym. To indicate non-FOSS with no reuse allowed, use `UNLICENSED` or point to a separate `LICENSE` file containing the full copyright and restrictions. Older versions of npm had more flexibility but this is no longer recommended.

*Source: [Which SPDX license is equivalent to 'All Rights Reserved'?](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/285885) — answer by Craig, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user is asking about the implications of using an MIT-licensed API in their commercial software project, specifically regarding selling the software and source code distribution.**

The MIT license is very permissive; you can freely use, modify, distribute, and sell software built with it. You are not required to share your own source code, but anyone receiving the original licensed component *can* redistribute it (though not necessarily your compiled application). It's crucial to carefully read and understand any open-source license before incorporating its components into a project.

*Source: [Meaning of MIT license](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/255227) — answer by dwc, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user is confused about the implications of using AGPL-licensed libraries in a commercial, closed-source application, specifically regarding modification, distribution requirements, and whether 'wrapping' the library in a separate process avoids licensing obligations.**

AGPL is stricter than GPL; any use of AGPL code – even without modification or through linking – generally requires your entire project to also be licensed under AGPL and made publicly available. While running AGPL software as a completely independent, optional service *might* avoid triggering the license, if your application fundamentally relies on that service to function, it will likely be considered a derivative work subject to AGPL's terms. Simply providing instructions for users to obtain and connect to the AGPL component separately is permissible, but bundling it with your closed-source code isn’t.

*Source: [AGPL - what you can do and what you can't](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/107883) — answer by Mark H, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

## Weitere Anreicherung

Stage-2 source for future practitioner grounding: arXiv cs.SE (software-engineering preprints).
