>[...]
>True, but I still think software patents are a bad idea.  Perhaps if
>they were shortened to 37 months instead of 37 years?
>[...]

What's the difference between a patent and a copyright?

(Sorry if this is the wrong group.)
-t
--
  Orpheus B. Gone |  Hoof-hearted?  |  timd@starbase.neosoft.com

                  \|/                   \/
                 }----                 }====-
                  /|\                   /\

In article <3r9the$rre@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, timd@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
(Orpheus) wrote:

> What's the difference between a patent and a copyright?
>
> (Sorry if this is the wrong group.)

Generally speaking the difference is this: Patents afford protection to
new and useful ideas, methods, and processes.  A copyright protects
"published" material.  So, for example, an article written on a new gadget
can be copyrighted and the gadget itself can be patented (subject, of
course, to a long and involved process).  If you make unauthorized copies
of the article you can violate copyright law.  If you make, use or
distribute unauthorized copies of the gadget itself you can violate patent
law.  Hope this helps :)

--
Jerry Dumblauskas
Cornell University

In <3r9the$rre@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, timd@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Orpheus) writes:
>>[...]
>>True, but I still think software patents are a bad idea.  Perhaps if
>>they were shortened to 37 months instead of 37 years?
>>[...]
>
>What's the difference between a patent and a copyright?
>
>(Sorry if this is the wrong group.)
>-t
>--
>  Orpheus B. Gone |  Hoof-hearted?  |  timd@starbase.neosoft.com

The US Constitution authorized Congress to protect two forms of "intellectual
property" -- writings and inventions.  Copyrights protect "writings", patents
protect "inventions".  (There are also, of course, trademarks that protect
trade names and symbols, and the new (M) integrated circuit construct that
is a sort of copyright on IC masks.)

A "writing" is any "work of authorship" (conventional writing, artwork,
written music, sound recording, etc).  All "works of authorship", since around
1970, have been "born" with a copyright -- as soon as you create something
non-trivial it is implicitly copyrighted.  The copyright is what it says -- it gives
the copyright owner the exclusive right to authorize copies of the work for
the term of the copyright (life plus 50 years, or a straight 75 years if the
copyright is held by a company).

Precisely what a copyright protects varies with the type of work.  For instance,
I could publish a table of national debt info gleaned from government documents
and have a copyright on it, but the copyright would only apply to the
arrangement of the data, not the data itself.  A conventional written work of
fiction, however, would be pretty much totally protected -- any unauthorized
copying beyond the ill-defined "fair use" would be illegal.

An "invention" is something that is "not obvious to someone skilled in the art".
That is, if you come up with some new arrangement or technique for doing
something, and if it can be argued that someone "skilled in the art" would
not have automatically come up with the same thing when faced with the
same set of problems, then you have an "invention".  (There are a few other
requirements besides, but not critical here.)  And, as it turns out, it is fairly
easy to argue that an invention is "not obvious".  What's much harder is
proving that it's "new" -- patent examiners will often reject a patent
application simply because it uses some of the same terms in its description
that are used in entirely different inventions.

A patent gives the owner the sole right to use (or license) that invention for
a period of years.  A patent is in some ways broader than a copyright in that
it takes less of a "direct copy" of your "intellectual property" to constitute a
violation.  However, any non-trivial program can have a copyright, whereas
even if you get a patent it would only protect certain narrow aspects of the
program.

Dan Hicks

Jerry Dumblauskas (jad21@cornell.edu) wrote:
: In article <3r9the$rre@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, timd@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
: (Orpheus) wrote:
:
: > What's the difference between a patent and a copyright?
: >
: > (Sorry if this is the wrong group.)
:
: Generally speaking the difference is this: Patents afford protection to
: new and useful ideas, methods, and processes.

Generally, it's slightly narrower than this.  The concept a Patent protects
is that of _invention_.  The arena is of _devices_ or processes, and is
limited to something _not_ an expression of "current art".  Software has
begun to be included in this on the basis that it is a type of "machine" or
"device".  An "idea" is _not_ patentable.  A specific _embodiment_ is
required.

:                                                A copyright protects
: "published" material.  So, for example, an article written on a new gadget
: can be copyrighted and the gadget itself can be patented (subject, of
: course, to a long and involved process).

The item protected by "copy"-right is an instance of a recordable "creative
_expression_".  Again, an "idea" is _not_ covered.

:                                          If you make unauthorized copies
: of the article you can violate copyright law.  If you make, use or
: distribute unauthorized copies of the gadget itself you can violate patent
: law.  Hope this helps :)
:
:
: --
: Jerry Dumblauskas
: Cornell University