|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 05:07 AM EDT |
A copyright covers the expression of an idea,
not the
idea.
This is simply not true. When Men at Work were sued for
copyright infringement over the flute riff in Land Down
Under, was it
the idea or the expression of the idea at
stake? They didn't copy any direct
expression of the
melody; there was no copy made of sheet music, or of a
recording. The expression of the idea was entirely their
own. But because
that sequence of notes expressed was
sufficiently similar to the sequence of
notes in another
song, a court ruled that they had infringed
copyright.
A patent covers an invention, not an idea, nor a
discovery.
I'm not quite clear where you draw the line between
an
invention and an idea. A patent doesn't cover a physical
thing, it covers
the idea of the thing. What I mean by that
is that when an inventor invents
something, he builds an
example of it. The patent doesn't only cover that one
examplar, but the idea which the example embodies - the idea
of the
invention.
Patents and copyrights are about people having ideas and
being given a monopoly on them so that they can profit from
them. In both
cases the form of the idea which is protected
is the one that is actually
useful to society. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Well, maybe that's why you're confused - Authored by: albert on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 09:47 AM EDT
- I think YOU'RE confused. - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 12:24 PM EDT
- Er, right - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 05:24 AM EDT
- Er, right - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 07:14 AM EDT
- Er, right - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 08:07 AM EDT
- Well, maybe that's why you're confused - Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 01:02 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
