Patent/copyright... minimum standards?

Factual Questions
1

Okay - I know that this is a question that refers to legal issues, but as far as I know legal issues are not banninated unless they are referring to a specific case… and I am talking in extreme generalities here. My question is:

What is the minimum legal requirement to prove that an idea was concieved on a particular date?

This is something I’ve always wondered about, and have heard multiple answers including:

  1. You just need to tell someone, and they can testify in court if it ever came up :rolleyes:
  2. You mail the idea (written down) to yourself in a post-dated envelope and keep it
  3. You mail the idea (written down) to the Library of Congress, which somehow keeps track of these things :dubious:
  4. You MUST go through the multiple thousand dollar patent process to have any claim :mad:

Which of these ‘work’, and how? If this is an unacceptable question, please tell me why before banning it. I don’t think all ‘legal’ questions should be disallowed, unless they clearly refer to an actual case/situation.

2

There’s a difference between copyright and patent.

Assuming you mean copyright, #2 used to be sufficient.

However, given that it takes approximately 30 minutes and $30 to get a copyright, that’s much better. The copyright office takes the form and the copy of your work, registers them, and then becomes the standard by which you can prove originality and thus rights.

Here’s the website for the U.S. Copyright Office. There is a LOT of information at this website about copyright.

The usual disclaimer: IANAL, and IANACopyrightL.

Robin

3

[QUOTE=MsRobyn]
There’s a difference between copyright and patent.

What, then, is the difference, and why would someone go to the trouble (which they obviously do) to establish a patent versus just copyrighting something? Sorry I’m so dense - but this is not my area, being, as you are, neither AL nor ACopyrightL!

4

Once you have produced a work, it is copywrot-ed (Or however you say it) automatically. No need to actually do anuything. (Unless you actually want to prevent theft.

Patents are when you go to an office.

5

IANAL, but in general

  • Patents are about ideas
  • Copyrights are about words

Anything you write down is automatically granted copyright, it’s yours immediately. Proving that you wrote it down at that time can be difficult if you haven’t registered the copyright, but there are ways. The mailing yourself an unopened envelope is a common idea, but there’s no evidence that that would ever hold up in court, although I think there was something posted recently about that happening in England. It’s never been tested in the US, AFAIK. Copyright is the “right” to “copy”.

Patents are ideas that are new and useful. There’s a long process involved in granting a patent, it is not automatic. Patent involves the rights to a process or assemblage of ideas. In general, it is used for commercial applications.

6

Right - I’ve got that much. My real question is what the relative benefits are… and in which situations copyright suffices or where patents trump copyrights… that kind of thing.

7

Nope. Never was. It’s meaningless. Prior to the change in the copyright act, you needed to register your copyright in order to prove anything. After the law changed on 1/1/1978, registration was no longer necessary.

[quote[However, given that it takes approximately 30 minutes and $30 to get a copyright, that’s much better. The copyright office takes the form and the copy of your work, registers them, and then becomes the standard by which you can prove originality and thus rights.[/QUOTE]
While this is true, it’s a waste of money. Copyright infringement is rare, and infringement on unpublished work is practically nonexistant (I know of only one example in print publishing).

Also, copyright does not protect ideas. They only protect the expression. You could write a book using the same plot as any other book and not be in violation.

Basically, you don’t have to prove the date of creation for copyright infringement: you can show your original published work to prove your case (and your publisher is the one who usually pays for the copyright). Unpublished works are never infringed upon – there’s no advantage in doing so. See my article on the subject.

For a short story or novel, you write the work and have the publisher copyright it. For a film script, I believe you can register the script with the WGAW, though actual copyright infringement on films is also rare (despite all the news reports you hear – they’re nearly always people filing nuisance lawsuits and hoping to strike it lucky).

For a patent, you need to file with the patent office for any protection.

Remember, in order to prove infringement, you need to prove the person saw your work: even in cases where the infringement looks deliberate (e.g., someone suing Finding Nemo because they had a book that showed a clownfish looking very much like those in the movie), if the person has never seen your work (which is why Hollywood studios never read scripts over the transom), they can’t be infringing.

8

Benefits? Who said anything about benefits? :wink:

But really, theoretically, you can sue, although since items are automatically coyrighted, you have to do something more then simply copyright a work, such as publish, to defend yourself.

9

RealityChuck, it’s not necessarily a waste of money, but it depends on what you’re trying to do with the work.

For example, I had to put together a professional portfolio with samples of my original, published work. Some of this work included papers and projects that are very tempting for an unscrupulous potential employer to steal. Formally copyrighting these costs me relatively little money and gives me the legal protection needed in case this work is stolen. And don’t call me paranoid; I’ve heard horror stories of work stolen from the portfolios of job candidates.

On the other hand, if you’re not trying to profit from your work, there’s no point in worrying about protecting it.

Robin

10

Good breakdown. So, in other words, one is not granted any automatic ‘copyright’ protection by being able to prove that one had an idea before another person, one would have to 1) take out a patent (which is really expensive) and 2) prove that the other person saw that you had the idea before they went and made it a reality.

So, patents are stronger than copyright, because they protect the expression of an idea?

11

No. You don’t have to publish.

By merely creating the work, it is protected. You can sue the infringer to stop publishing the item, and can get actual damages for the infringement (though actual damages are next to impossible to prove, so ultimately, all you can do is ask the to desist). You also have to pay all your legal and court costs.

If you register the copyright, you can sue for damages, and the infringer can be required to pay your legal fees and court costs. So registration is important, but remember: true copyright infringement is extremely unlikely, and even less likely with unpublished work.

12

Patents and copyrights are two different beasts.

Copyright protects intangible intellectual property: Books, articles, PowerPoints(!), websites, plays, musical compositions, that sort of thing. You might be able to touch the book, but the material within is intangible. I’ve linked to the Copyright Office website.

Patents protect ideas that may eventually become tangible. So, if you have an idea for a new process to manufacture widgets, you get a patent. Or if you invent a better widget, you get a patent. The idea must be written down to get a patent. The US Patent Office is here.

Robin

13

No. Both copyrights and patents deal with the expression of an idea. Copyrights protect works of art (e.g., books, stories, film, CDs), whereas patents deal with inventions. In both cases, it’s not the idea that’s being protected. If you patent a better mousetrap, I can still make my own design – as long as my design is different than yours.

14

From Britannica Online:

copyright : Exclusive right to reproduce, publish, or sell an original work of authorship. It protects from unauthorized copying any published or unpublished work that is fixed in a tangible medium (including a book or manuscript, musical score or recording, script or dramatic production, painting or sculpture, or blueprint or building). It does not protect matters such as an idea, process, or system.

patent : Government grant to an inventor of the exclusive right to make, use, or sell an invention, usually for a specified term. It may be granted for a process or method that is new, useful, and not obvious, or for a new use of a known process, machine, or composition of matter or material, including asexually reproduced plants and genetically engineered organisms. It may also be granted for any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture.

15

Okay - but if you didn’t patent your ‘physical’ invention (i.e. the idea has to be something that even if you don’t have it made today you ‘COULD’ put it together tomorrow), then it doesn’t matter who had the idea first - whoever put the idea in use is actually the ‘patent holder’. Or am I cornfusing things? What separates a book/story/film from an invention anyway?

16

It’s not really a question of one being superior to the other. Copyrights and patents do not typically cover the same things (although there are fuzzy cases at the margins). As Telemark notes, patents cover “ideas.” For instance, a patent could cover the way a machine does its job, or a system of rules for doing accounting. Machines themselves, in the sense of physical objects, aren’t patenteable, but the way in which the machine takes input A and delivers output B is a system for creating B from A, and that system is patentable.

One difference between the two is that copyrights are only violated when something is copied. So if you write something that’s too similar to an existing copyrighted work, it’s legal as long as you came up with it independently. (Of course, you may have a tough time proving that in Court.) Whereas if you create a machine that apes a patented mechanism you’re in violation, even if you came up with it totally independently. This is why te patent archives have to be openly searchable – so that when you invent something, you can make sure you’re not infringing some extant patent you’d never seen before.

–Cliffy

17

Bingo. Arguments like this happen with some frequency. For example, in 2002, Congress recognized a fellow named Meucci as the inventor of the telephone because he patented a similar device before Alexander Graham Bell did.

(I’ll look up the resolution later.)

Robin

18

Okay, there’s way too much bad information and multiple correcting going on here.

BlueLine, for most things there’s no question regarding whether to choose to protect something under patent or copyright. They are two different things. The only area that they overlap is in certain high tech areas. Computer software and certain kinds of electronic devices, for example, can be protected under copyright and patent. However, in each case, copyright law and patent law are protecting two different aspects of the thing.

Copyright law protects creative expression; it does not protect ideas. Patent law protects ideas in the form of inventions. In the case of computer software, copyright law would protect only the actual lines of code that have been written.

In order for something to be protected under copyright law, it must be original, creative, and fixed in a perceivable medium. You do not have to register a work in order for copyright protection to apply. In the case of computer software, patent law would protect not the actual lines of code that have been written, but the idea of using a computer program to do something (like “one-click ordering”).

In order for something to be protected under patent law, it must be novel, useful, and non-obvious. You must apply for and be granted a patent in order for patent protection to apply.

19

Others have dealt with copyright pretty well, so I’ll focus on patent law:

To get a patent for yourself, number 4 is the only option. In fact, revealing your idea to “the public” at all will cause you to lose your rights to a monopoly which a patent confers.

If you tell someone about your invention as in 1., then unless they have signed a confidentiality agreement with you, they can go ahead and use your idea and you have not a leg to stand on. If you mail yourself the invention as in 2., then you haven’t publicly released it and you can still get a patent. If you send it to the library, you lose all chance of getting a patent. A patent is an incredibly strong document - monopolies are not handed out lightly. The patent office must be sure that your idea has never been done by anyone else before (including you!) before they grant one.

So,

For patents, you must send a complete description of your invention (with drawings) to a national Patent Office. “Multiple thousands of dollars” only applies when you use a patent attorney or agent to help you draft your description (and ‘claims’ - a precise linguistic summary of the bounds of your monopoly), and seek worldwide protection, which might be overkill. You may well be better served by filing only in your own country. For example, the UK charges a mere £30 to file, then £70 for your invention to be searched, then £130 for it to be properly examined, and then the first four years of coverage is free (with annual charges of about £50 thereafter to keep your monopoly), ie. £230 ($500) in total.

I’m not sure what the USPO charges. Regarding dates, you should also note that the US process starts from the date you invented, not the date you filed, when assessing whether a patent is being infringed. This policy is frankly bizarre in terms of being able to actually administer patent law and has arguably prevented any progress in bringing about a one-stop world patent whcih would make the whole process easier.

20

A book/story/film is a creative work of authorship. It can be entertaining or enlightening or educational. You perceive it – you read it or watch it or listen to it.

An invention is a useful idea. You practise a patent – that is, when you follow its instructions you are making something. When you practise a patent, it does something. You get something out of it. It is not merely for your entertainment or edification.