How is the berne convention related to that? Every country has their own copyright law (usually not copyright but authors rights in Europe), the berne convention didn't change that.
French law is French law. Bern convention is the Bern convention (that was a hundred years ago by the way).
How is the Berne convention relevant to the case, specifically?
Are you from the US? I've only ever seen US folks try to get into the Berne convention and monism/dualism. I'd like to understand your perspective if you want to talk about these topics.
>How is the Berne convention relevant to the case, specifically?
Your claim that "France doesn’t have copyright." Droits d’auteurs (authors rights) is copyright. Here in Finland copyright is also called authors right (tekijänoikeus), but its just different term for the exactly same thing.
France, US, EU all are parts of Berne convention, Two UCC's, WTO and TRIPS. French copyright court treats all these agreements superior to domestic legislation.
It is not the same thing at all. The US copyright is very different from the French droit d'auteur. The Berne convention merely fixes some common ground and minimum protection. For instance copyright can be fully transferred. The droit d'auteur is partly impossible to transfer (moral rights always remain to the author).
Copyright has a precise definition and is opposed to the droit d'auteur in its philosophy, so saying that France has copyright is a little bit like saying France has a king, sure it plays a somewhat similar role but is is fundamentally different
French copyright: France has signed Berne convention and is also subject to European copyright law.
Software patents in Europe: Harder to patent compared to the US, but still possible.