Copyright vs. Patent... what is the difference?

[dre2xl]

For the United States, anyway… Please enlighten me? And if patents last only a couple of decades and copyrights last virtually forever, why is MS seeking out software patents in particular?

[brianmelendez]

Speaking very generally, a copyright protects a work of expression – the Constitution refers to “Authors” and “Writings” – such as a book, music, or film. A patent protects a useful (in the sense of practical) invention – the Constitution refers to “Inventors” and “Discoveries” – such as a machine, device, or process.

A patent lasts for a shorter time because, after the inventor has enjoyed a monopoly for a reasonable period, the patented invention is intended to be exploited by the marketplace so that science and commerce can progress more readily through competition. A copyright last much longer because imitation and derivative work are less desirable in the creative arts than originality is, so the incentive for introducing early competition is much weaker.

[Iluvatar]

@brianmelendez

A copyright last much longer because imitation and derivative work are less desirable in the creative arts than originality is, so the incentive for introducing early competition is much weaker.

It should be noted that the original length of a copyright in the U.S. was 14 years, with the right for a 14 year renewal (if the author was still alive). It wasn’t until more recently (at the behest of the entertainment industry) that we got virtually permanent copyrights.

[Derleth]

@dre2xl

For the United States, anyway… Please enlighten me? And if patents last only a couple of decades and copyrights last virtually forever, why is MS seeking out software patents in particular?

MS wants software patents because they can be used to torpedo whole fields of development and effectively shut out competition. The USPTO is supposed to block such a cynical misuse of the process, but the USPTO is widely regarded as a joke these days.

Copyrights, on the other hand, only protect the specific code actually written by someone working for MS. The concepts embodied by that code can still be used in other software.

Some software patents granted by the USPTO. A large portion of these ideas are in active use in programs not written by the respective patent holder. Plenty of these ideas are regarded as obvious and are discussed in textbooks.
Wikipedia’s article on the issue. It’s difficult to find an unbiased take, and Wikipedia is usually the best place to go for neutrality.

[RealityChuck]

@Iluvatar

It should be noted that the original length of a copyright in the U.S. was 14 years, with the right for a 14 year renewal (if the author was still alive). It wasn’t until more recently (at the behest of the entertainment industry) that we got virtually permanent copyrights.

Sorry, but the entertainment industry had absolutely nothing to do with the changes in copyright law. The last change was in order to make US copyright law in line with copyright law everywhere else in the world (e.g., the Berne Convention), and that was extended primarily because Germany didn’t want the rights to Mein Kampf to go into the public domain.

[Opus1]

@RealityChuck

Sorry, but the entertainment industry had absolutely nothing to do with the changes in copyright law. The last change was in order to make US copyright law in line with copyright law everywhere else in the world (e.g., the Berne Convention), and that was extended primarily because Germany didn’t want the rights to Mein Kampf to go into the public domain.

Nonsense. Disney lobbied heavily for the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, so much so that it was dubbed by critics the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act.” The estate of George Gershwin also supported the act. And MPAA president Jack Valenti wanted a copyright that would last “forever less one day.”
Bringing U.S. law into accordance with the Berne Convention was a factor, but nothing compared to the intense efforts by Disney and other major copyright holders. To state that the “entertainment industry had absolutely nothing to do with the changes in copyright law” is not the truth, and should not be stated in GQ, where we’re trying to fight, not spread, ignorance.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

[Acsenray]

This is a checklist I offered in an old thread:

copyrights
– deals with exclusive rights over creative expression
– rights do not extend to ideas or facts, only to the specific expression in question
– rights adhere as soon as the work is fixed in a tangible medium
– rights are relatively broad and last for a long time
– there are some common law copyright protections, but little that is useful in most cases (seeing as publication kills common law copyright); in almost all cases, copyright rights derive from federal statutory law
– in order to be copyrightable, a work must be creative, original, and fixed in a tangible medium
– works include literary works, musical works, dramatic works, pantomices and choreographic works, pictorial/graphic/sculptural works, motion pictures and audiovisual works, sound recordings, and architechtural works
– short things like words, phrases, titles, slogans, names, etc., cannot be copyrighted
– the copyright holder has exclusive rights to reproduce, prepare derivative works, to distribute copies to the public, to perform the work, to display the work publicly, and to digitally transmit the work

patents
– deals with exclusive rights over useful ideas (inventions)
– rights must be secured by application to authority
– grants a broad monopoly over a useful idea, but for a relatively limited time
– may be secured only through federal statutory law; there are no common law patents
– in order to be patentable, your idea or invention must be novel, non-obvious, and useful

trademarks
– deals with rights over terms and symbols that can be used to indicate the origin of goods or services - but it has to be something that is capable of distinguishing your goods or services
– may be secured either through common law or through federal statutory law
– you must show that you are using the mark in order to identify the origin of goods or services that you are providing. You can’t just obtain a trademark and sit on it; if you aren’t actually using it in the marketplace, it’s open for someone else to jump in and take it over.
– you must actively defend your trademark against hostile uses
– you can only stop someone from using your trademark when you can show that there is a likelihood of confusion regarding the origin of goods or services

[dre2xl]

Thanks!

[Xema]

It may be worth noting that obtaining a copyright is easy and inexpensive, while obtaining a patent is relatively complicated and time-concuming.

[Xema]

“Consuming”

[Richard_Pearse]

In fact, copyright is automatic (at least in Australia it is.)

[Huerta88]

@1920s Style "Death Ray"

In fact, copyright is automatic (at least in Australia it is.)

Copyright “inheres” in an original creative work. However, registration may (in certain jurisdictions) be necessary or advisable to make enforcement or recovery of damages most simple.

In the realm of software, patents are “desirable” (it’s a controversial subject, indeed) because they can protect the algorithm or implementation of a concept at a fairly broad level whereas (as noted) an independently-derived, reverse-engineered version of a software program that does not copy the source code (but achieves the same functionality using other source code) likely won’t violate any copyright.

The lifespan of patents vs. copyrights is irrelevant, largely, in the software world (especially in view of the much broader coverage of patents), given that 20 years (life of a patent, from its filing date) is an eternity in terms of software version lifecycles.