Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Copyright vs. patentability | 1347 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 10:24 AM EDT

This one is easy: copyright is able to cover a particular implementation, but
not the abstract idea behind it. Patents protect innovation, copyright protects
expression/performance.

I can certainly sell a book with a patented binding and copyrighted content. So
software is not alone in that respect.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Copyright vs. patentability - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 11:23 AM EDT
- Copyright vs. patentability - Authored by: Wol on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 01:44 PM EDT
Abstract idea??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 01:44 PM EDT

Authored by: mrisch on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 02:28 PM EDT

Copyright doesn't protect functionality (just ask Oracle). You
also don't need to be novel/non-obvious to protect copyright
(which leads to overprotection). So, these are complementary
protections.

Also, software is not the only thing protected by both. Books
are (a new form of pop-up book v. the content of the pop-up
book). Images are (compression v. content). Music is
(compression v. content). Manufacturing processes are (if you
copy the instruction sheet).

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Your last two examples are patents on mathematics.[n/t] - Authored by: jesse on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 04:24 PM EDT
Your first example is a physical thing. - Authored by: jesse on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 04:25 PM EDT
Copyright vs. patentability - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 05:28 PM EDT
- This is correct! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:48 AM EDT
Copyright vs. patentability - example dissection - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 10:36 PM EDT
Utterly confused, Mr. Risch. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:49 AM EDT
Copyright vs. patentability - Authored by: josmith42 on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 09:15 PM EDT

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )