Andy9o8 2 #26 April 1, 2010 Quote Quote Quote My personal opinion - copyrights protects 'luxuries' (arts, cultural stuff), patents protect 'necessity' (science). May I nitpick? As most people know, copyrights and patents are separate sub-categories under the broader category of "intellectual property". Anyhow, your definitions are on the right track, but a little over-simplified. A patent is an exclusive right granted to the developer of an invention........ . So who invented these genes? She did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #27 April 1, 2010 QuoteMy personal opinion - copyrights protects 'luxuries' (arts, cultural stuff), patents protect 'necessity' (science). Sounds like you have a good fundamental understanding of the differences between copyright and patents. I won't argue with it. But I do think you're forgetting the Golden Rule - those with the Gold, make the Rules.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #28 April 1, 2010 Quote Look at "Steamboat Willie", the first Mickey Mouse cartoon. It's old enough it should have been public domain by now, but Disney keeps paying - err, "lobbying" - congress to extend copyright law, rather than let it fall to public domain. and elvis is still alive (in the world of intellectual property)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,099 #29 April 1, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote My personal opinion - copyrights protects 'luxuries' (arts, cultural stuff), patents protect 'necessity' (science). May I nitpick? As most people know, copyrights and patents are separate sub-categories under the broader category of "intellectual property". Anyhow, your definitions are on the right track, but a little over-simplified. A patent is an exclusive right granted to the developer of an invention........ . So who invented these genes? She did. And She doesn't need patents.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #30 April 2, 2010 Quotewww.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/nyregion/31about.html Good. The idea that something that's existed for millennia could be patented is just absurd. This is important first step. But there are more. Now let's wait for SC Bilski decision.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #31 April 5, 2010 As someone who's very much in debt because of law school, passed the patent bar, and is now working on an LLM...I would hope I do at this point, or else I wasted a lot of time and money!!! What I said is very oversimplified (to answer a previous post/comment), I realize, but it's my 'general' opinion as to the difference between copyrights and patents and why I would have much larger concerns with modifying the patent term versus the copyright term. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
