# Why do patents last 20 years, but copyright 95+? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 4, 2012, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-patents-last-20-years-but-copyright-95/611763 "2012-02-04T16:39:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2012, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-patents-last-20-years-but-copyright-95/611763/21 "2012-02-05T22:23:27Z")
Thanks for the editorial. You didn’t happen to notice we’re in GQ, did you? ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-patents-last-20-years-but-copyright-95/611763/22 "2012-02-06T22:35:23Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > Disney owned trademarks on Mickey Mouse and had used that in the past to stop others from using the characters. If copyright had lapsed on “Steamboat Willie,” Disney could sue anyone who made it available for trademark infringement and would have won (they had in the past, with some PD Mickey Mouse comic strips). I’d like a cite on that. Trademarks are intended for company identification, to tell the real deal from the generic fakies. There’d be no such brand confusion if the advertisements/marketing for a new public domain Mickey comic or video were carefully done, making sure the public knew that the source (most likely a download) was not the Disney company. But if trademarks can be used to squelch even that, then you have in essence a perpetual copyright enforced through trademark law. That would be crossing the streams. ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-patents-last-20-years-but-copyright-95/611763/23 "2012-02-06T23:20:02Z")
> [@](#): > > I think any adjustment on patent length would have to be based on industry. I would have to agree. Software patents are the obvious place where there is considerable pressure to reduce the period. Overall however it is probably an impossible task to try to vary lengths based on industry. The amount of political lobbying that would follow the merest suggestion would be immense. The big problem with software patents is not just the time they live, but the utter triviality and lack of innovation that is allowed to pass. Most patents are used as money making mechanisms, and are not used in the manner that patents were intended to work. So much so that there is a very real chance that the industry will start to see a stifling of innovation. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-patents-last-20-years-but-copyright-95/611763/24 "2012-02-07T02:45:32Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Thanks for the editorial. You didn’t happen to notice we’re in GQ, did you? Are you aware that you cited as many sources as he did, so we have just as much reason to believe him as you? ---
**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:** [February 7, 2012, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-patents-last-20-years-but-copyright-95/611763/25 "2012-02-07T16:03:59Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Patents and copyrights both cover intellectual property, but the similarities end there. There’s no reason for them to last the same amount of time. > > … > > The long and short of it that separate systems have separate laws for separate reasons. You can’t apply the laws of one to any of the others and expect to have that make sense. I agree with everything Exapno said here. > [@](#): > > SCSimmons, I need to tell you that anybody who accuses Walt Disney for this gets treated thereafter like somebody dropping Creationism into a discussion of evolution. It’s a giant neon sign that you don’t understand the issues. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! > [@MsRobyn](#): > > Copyrighted material, on the other hand, is by definition unique. No one else has created the material, so competition is irrelevant. It’s not that competition is irrelevant. I think you do want competition in the market for creative works. However, I believe that making you come up with something original instead of allowing you to copy what’s already popular actually encourages, enhances, and increases competition in this market, and benefits consumers. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-patents-last-20-years-but-copyright-95/611763/26 "2015-10-30T21:26:56Z")
I just found this thread from SD where, in post #10 from 2013, **Biffy the Elephant Shrew** has an interesting observation on previously unreleased Beatles tracks “silently” posted on iTunes. Not sure if they are there now. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by \*\*Just Ed \*\* > > Aside from which, what purpose does withdrawing the music have anyway? Once it’s published, the copyright extends, so why release and then immediately withdraw it when you know you can make money from fans wanting to buy it? > > From what I understand, the Beatles really did not want this material released. If they wanted to make money off of the tracks, they could have done so long ago. This was a move to head off the unauthorized releases of the material that would appear if the tracks went into public domain. Ironically, Apple had to release the recordings in order to continue to sit on them. > > (It does seem to me that the Beatles should still be able to suppress unauthorized releases even without extending the phonographic copyright, as there is still the separate copyright on the actual songs–at least those written by the Beatles–as well as the trademark on the Beatles name.) > **[59 unreleased Beatles tracks on iTunes--blink and you missed them](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=710680)** > > Apple Records last night quietly released 59 studio outtakes by the Beatles, including the unreleased “Bad to Me,” as downloads on iTunes. The tracks were only fleetingly available before being withdrawn. From what I can gather they were never... ---
**Author:** ![Napier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Napier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Napier)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2015, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-patents-last-20-years-but-copyright-95/611763/27 "2015-11-01T11:59:48Z")
I think it makes more sense for a patent to quickly become a zombie, because technology builds on itself. Having all that 20+ year old technology in the public domain simplifies ownership of things invented more recently. Nobody much builds on copyrighted stuff. You don’t see longer books or songs that have shorter ones completely inserted inside of them. It’s fine if it takes many generations for copyrighted things to turn into zombies. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2015, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-patents-last-20-years-but-copyright-95/611763/28 "2015-11-01T17:07:28Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > [Public Domain Character - TV Tropes](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PublicDomainCharacter) > > But I do find it truly weird that a song written in the late 1800’s (Happy Birthday to You) is still going to be copyright until the 2030’s… I believe it’s probably still being appealed/fought tooth and nail, but at trial court a Federal judge has ruled that Warner/Chappell’s copyright of Happy Birthday is invalid. I believe that is now the legal status, that it is not copyrighted and anyone can use it without a license. [Link](http://thehill.com/policy/technology/254625-happy-birthday-song-copyright-struck-down). Further, it seems at least decently likely the song was never appropriately copyrighted. The litigants in the case against Warner/Chappell have argued that the company improperly collected licensing fees to the tune of around $2m/yr for the past 70 years or so and should have to pay those back as well. ---
**Author:** ![Walton\_Firm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/45deac/32.png) [@Walton\_Firm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walton_Firm)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2015, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-patents-last-20-years-but-copyright-95/611763/29 "2015-11-01T17:17:57Z")
Copyright protects specific, unique creative works. If J.K. Rowling had not written the Harry Potter books, they would not exist. Sure, other people may have written other books about an orphan boy going to a wizard school (in fact that entire genre was already [ripe for parody](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spellcasting_101:_Sorcerers_Get_All_The_Girls) long before Rowling wrote the first HP chapter) but there can be no denying that Rowling is the author of this specific instantiation of the genre. Hence, allowing her to hold the exclusive distribution rights on HP for a very long time, perhaps even forever, does little harm and could be defended on moral grounds. Patents, on the other hand, protect an _idea_, and history shows that in the majority of cases, once “the time is ripe” for a certain invention or discovery, there will be multiple groups of people independently working on it. E.g. Newton and Leibnitz were developing calculus independently from each other at almost the same time; same for Darwin versus Wallace on the theory of evolution; the Wright Brothers are usually given the credit for building the first successful flying machine but there are several other plausible candidates for that claim and if the Wrights had been unsuccessful then somebody else would have achieved the same feat within a couple of years at the most. So it makes a lot more sense to claim that J.K. Rowling “owns” the Harry Potter franchise and that she or her heirs should continue receiving the profits for decades or even centuries, than to say that the heirs of the Wright Brothers should continue to hold exclusive ownership of the concept of propellor-driven aircraft. There’s also a lot more opportunity for damage in the case of patents. Suppose Rowling attempted to demand such unreasonably high fees for the publication rights to Harry Potter that no publisher wanted to work with her. The result would be that nobody would get to read the books. Well, she could have achieved the same result by not writing the books in the first place, so it’s hard to deny her the right to do so. On the other hand, if the Wright Brothers had patented the propellor-driven aircraft and then decided to sit on the patent for 20 years, they could have done a huge amount of damage to the economy – much more than they could have done by simply finding another hobby and not building their aircraft prototype in the first place, because then someone else would have done the same thing a few months later and history would have proceeded as normal. ---
**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:** [November 1, 2015, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-patents-last-20-years-but-copyright-95/611763/30 "2015-11-01T17:21:38Z")
> [@Walton\_Firm](#): > > On the other hand, if the Wright Brothers had patented the propellor-driven aircraft and then decided to sit on the patent for 20 years, they could have done a huge amount of damage to the economy – much more than they could have done by simply finding another hobby and not building their aircraft prototype in the first place, because then someone else would have done the same thing a few months later and history would have proceeded as normal. Arguably, the Wright brothers did resort to patent litigation in a way that set back development of aeronautics in the United States for several years. ---
**Author:** ![GiantRat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@GiantRat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GiantRat)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2015, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-patents-last-20-years-but-copyright-95/611763/31 "2015-11-01T21:45:54Z")
In regard to copyright, Sam Clemens (aka, Mark Twain) testified in front of Congress regarding extending copyright periods to 50 years. Everything on the web that I’m seeing is behind a paywall… I have a copy of the testimony, but it’s too long to re-type and post here. Definitely an amusing and thought-provoking read. His central argument was that he tore that material from inside himself; he has more money than he needs, and knows a dozen trades and can learn a dozen more; but, his daughters are disadvantaged because he raised them to be ladies, and the money that he made sacrifices to earn should be able to out last them and keep them set for life. It’s a very funny read… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-patents-last-20-years-but-copyright-95/611763.md?page=1)