# Copyright "Attitude" for Patents? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 7, 2004, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-attitude-for-patents/243996 "2004-05-07T13:31:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Jinx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2004, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-attitude-for-patents/243996/1 "2004-05-07T13:31:39Z")
What does a copyright really do? Just because you have one, does it mean your work is original? The Library of Congress does not search to make sure your work is unique! So, why aren’t patents treated the same? - Jinx ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2004, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-attitude-for-patents/243996/2 "2004-05-07T14:28:45Z")
Copyright protection and patent protection are completely separate concepts with differing justifications and purposes. Well, in general, they do have a common purpose under the constitution – Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 says: > [@](#): > > The Congress shall have Power … To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries “Authors” and “Writings” lead to copyright protection and “Inventors” and “Discoveries” lead to patent protection. However, copyright law is a protection of _expression_. You have created something, an expression that is original. The degree of originality required is actually quite small. But, there clearly has to be some degree of creative work involved. You can’t copyright individual words, phrases, titles, etc. There has to be some substance there. More importantly, you cannot copyright _ideas_. Copyright protection lasts a long time (nearly 100 years now) and such rights are fairly expansive. Many legal systems also have a concept of “moral rights” under which the creator of an artistic work naturally has rights to protect his or her creation. Patent law, on the other hand, protects _ideas_ and _discoveries_. These are things in which there are no moral rights. In a free society, ideas and knowledge are for everyone to do with what they wish. However, in order to encourage research and invention, the patent law is created to give inventors a _limited_ set of what are essentially monopoly rights to exploit an idea for a limited period. Patent protection is for a much shorter term that copyright protection and for a much limited purpose. Originality and creativity don’t play a role in patent law. In order to get a patent, you have to show that your idea or invention is _novel, useful, and not obvious_ (based on what people already know). In granting a patent, you are restricting the implementation of an idea and granting a monopoly, so the law wants to be particularly sure that you deserve it – you don’t want to disrupt commerce by suddenly giving a monopoly to somebody for an idea that people already know about. There’s my very quick and not very organised response. I hope it’s helpful. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2004, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-attitude-for-patents/243996/3 "2004-05-07T17:51:34Z")
Note that copyrights are not “granted” like patents are. Everything you produce: text, music, art, etc. is _born_ copyrighted. You don’t have to insert that © 2004 **Jinx** nor register it with the LoC. (But doing the latter really helps in terms of collecting money in a lawsuit.) Your OP was copyrighted 2004 by the CR the moment you hit “submit”. Disputes over originality of copyright are settled in court. Who published it first, is the latter work too similar to the original, did the second author know of the first author’s work, etc. Unfortunately, the USPO has become extremely lax about granting patents. In computing, companies are getting patents for things that someone else already thought of and published 30 years ago! They don’t even seem to care about enforcing the “no perpetual motion machines” clause anymore. So having a patent is pretty much meaningless now in terms of “proof of originality”. Thus disputes about patents are now settled in court most of the time too. (For music, there are services that you can send your sheet music in to and they will tell you if your song is similar to any song they know of, all for a fee.) ---
**Author:** ![Jinx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2004, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-attitude-for-patents/243996/4 "2004-05-07T18:06:34Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > …More importantly, you cannot copyright _ideas_…Patent law, on the other hand, protects _ideas_ and _discoveries_. a) Well, actually copyright gives you more protection on an idea because you really cannot patent an idea UNLESS: you can fully disclose your idea to the point where it is enabling - without breaking the laws of physics. In other words, if you have a vague idea of a belt to make pigs fly, that is not enough to get a patent on…but you could copyright an article, even if fiction, about a vague idea to make pigs fly. b) Ultimately, they both deal with infringement in the big picture, isn’t it? Don’t people sue when two songs are too close together in arrangement, or that French dude suing Disney for stealing his conception of a Nemo-like story? - Jinx ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2004, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-attitude-for-patents/243996/5 "2004-05-07T18:19:40Z")
> [@Jinx](#): > > In other words, if you have a vague idea of a belt to make pigs fly, that is not enough to get a patent on…but you could copyright an article, even if fiction, about a vague idea to make pigs fly. No, that still doesn’t give you rights to the _idea_ of pigs flying. The only thing you have rights in is your article–your expression, that is, the actual sequence of words you have actually typed or written. Anyone and everyone can subsequently write an article or a story–even a song, a painting, or sculpture–about pigs flying and you have nothing to say about it unless they copy your actual words (or you can prove that it is a “derivative work”). > [@](#): > > b) Ultimately, they both deal with infringement in the big picture, isn’t it? Don’t people sue when two songs are too close together in arrangement, or that French dude suing Disney for stealing his conception of a Nemo-like story? “Infringement” means interference with someone’s exclusive rights in something. Yes, both copyright and patent law (as well as trademark law, which is another different thing) give someone exclusive rights in something (up to a point). Interfering with any of these rights can be called “infringement.” So, yes, they both may implicate infringement, but, what’s your point? People can’t win just because two songs are “too close together in arragement.” They have to show that the alleged infringer (1) had access to the protected work, and (2) that there is _substantial similarity_ between the works. In other words, two pieces of music might be identically arranged, but if the melodies are completely different there’s no infringement. When it comes to patent infringement, you don’t have to show access. Essentially, when making a copyright claim, you are saying “This guy saw my stuff and copied it.” If it turns out that the guy never saw your stuff and came up with it on his own, there’s no infringement. In the case of patent law, it doesn’t matter whether or not there was access, because you’re intentionally granting a commercial monopoly over an idea. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2004, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-attitude-for-patents/243996/6 "2004-05-07T18:24:22Z")
> [@Jinx](#): > > or that French dude suing Disney for stealing his conception of a Nemo-like story? He’s not going to win if all he can show is that they stole the _concept_. He has to show that they had access to his _actual expression_ (i.e., his novel or his screenplay – not just a story outline) and that they _actually copied his expression_ (not just the general storyline).