A lawyer once explained the difference between copyright and patent thus:
If Shakespaerre had patented Romeo and Juliet as opposed to copyrighting it, West Side Story would have infringed because the two stories are virtually identical. However, West Side Story was a sufficiently different experession of the idea that it did not violate the R&J copyright.
Is this explanation accurate enough for non-lawyers?
(Bill Taylor)
bill[_at_]mainstream.com
Received on Sat Apr 02 1994 - 13:40:35 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:11 GMT