In short
The question whether the copyright in software is a patent is separated according to whether the claim looks at the expression of the code or at a technical solution. The text of the source code may be read for copyright. An invention that solves a technical problem stands separately at the patent door even if it is implemented in software. It is not said that every program is only copyright, or that no software can be patented. A term of protection is not written in this text.
The same product can carry both doors. The expression of the code is read in one document, and the technical solution in another. The two claims are not added to the same petition by rote. Which right was infringed is not stated before the text of the code and the patent claims are placed side by side. The function being the same does not by itself show that the expression was copied.
The expression of the code is read as a work
If the source and object code of a program is an expression that bears its owner's characteristic, it can be protected as a work. The general frame of protection stands in the record on copyright. The protection is in the expression. Code that does the same job, with a different expression, is not treated by itself as a copy of that work. An idea, the abstract name of an algorithm, or the function of an interface is not the same thing as the sentences of the code.
A comparison is made if the two texts of code are there. Without the text, a screenshot is not put in place of the source code. The screen shows the interface at that moment, and it does not by itself prove the whole of the expression. The application separates which file is shown as the work. If there is no file name, a declaration of infringement is not built with a general sentence of similarity.
A patent claim is not the code line by line
A patent looks at the technical solution defined in the claims. The novelty side stands in the record on the novelty requirement. A claim is not the line-by-line text of the source code. A method that runs in software is examined separately for patentability if it has technical character. If it does not, the patent door can close for that application. That is not a sentence that all software is outside patent.
The distinction between the inventor and the applicant is in the record on the inventor. The two capacities may not be gathered in the same person. The petition does not by itself declare the person who wrote the code to be the patent owner. A patent certificate is not treated as having also taken over the copyright in the code by itself. Each right is read from its own document.
Code written at work is a separate record
The right of the employer, or of the person who commissioned the work, over the code stands in the record on a work produced at work. An employment relationship does not by itself write every line to the employer. In whom which right arises is read from that record. This text does not rewrite the birth of ownership, and it does not freeze the term.
If the contract does not name the economic rights, one does not say that the assignment is complete. Payment of the price does not by itself pass a right that is not written in the contract. An invoice can show the price of the software. An invoice is not the list of economic rights. The list stands in the written contract, by the name of the rights. A right whose name is not listed does not pass because it was delivered.
The same function is not treated as a copy
Copyright protects the expression of the code. A program with the same function and a different expression is not declared a copy. The technical solution is read by also looking at the patent claims. When the two readings meet in the same file, the code and the claims are not mixed. The decision is built when the text and the claims are placed side by side. Without the text, a sentence that it does similar work does not by itself treat the infringement as established.
Counsel in Ankara separates from the document that the office being in Çankaya does not change the competent authority. The office in Çankaya does not choose the court for an intellectual-property dispute. The name of the district does not change where the code is recorded, or the authority for the application. The competent place is read from the dispute's own rule. The office address does not by itself paste copyright and patent into the same petition.
How the two doors are separated
A claim in software is read separately as the expression of the code and as a technical solution. Not every program is treated as only copyright, and not all software is treated as outside patent. A term of protection is not written in this text, and ownership in the employment relationship is not drawn by itself from the price of the commission.
Conclusion
The door of protection is chosen according to whether the claim looks at the expression of the code or at the technical solution. Neither door is open or closed in advance for every piece of software. The term of protection is not written. The frame stands on the intellectual property page. The basis is the Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works and the Industrial Property Law No. 6769.