RE: The Basic Question: Why??

In Message Tue, 1 Mar 1994 13:02:22 -0500,   mlwinkelman[_at_]dow.com (Michael L Winkelman Patent-Midland 517-636-8449) writes:
>
>Has anyone ever given any serious thought recently as
>to why there is such a TIME difference between
>copyright and patent protection periods?

One justification is the degree of protection (aside from the time limit) is vastly different for patent and copyright. Copyright provides a lengthy term of protection but the protection is only against "copying" the copyrighted work. Independent creation of the same or similar work is not barred by copyright. Nor does copyright bar anyone from using the basic idea or essence of a copyrighted work. Copyright rather strictly protects the form of expression and not the underlying idea that is expressed. Patent law, in contrast, provides the patent owner with virtually the absolute right to control the patented invention. Independent inventors are not free to use their invention if it is covered by a valid patent. Furthermore, although a patent doesn't actually protect mere ideas, it comes much closer to protecting ideas than does copyright. This is especially true in light of the fact that patent law permits the use of "means for" claims which are really amazingly broad if drafted properly.

Consequently, it can be argued that copyright maximizes the term but minimizes the protection offered. In contrast, patent law maximizes protection but minimizes the term. In mathematical terms it can be stated that the amount of protection and the term of protection are inversely proportional.

--
Andrew Beckerman-Rodau          Phone:       419-772-2207
Professor of Law                FAX:         419-772-1875
Ohio Northern University        INTERNET:    arodau[_at_]crassus.onu.edu
Pettit College of Law           Home Office: arodau[_at_]aol.com
Ada, OH 45810