Dear James and all,

Could it be that patents deal with gizmos (objects) and copyright deals
with "words" (material and immaterial) that, in part, makes things
different.  But even this distinction is getting "fuzzy."  

I am general editor of the Pearson Custom Library of American
Literature, which allows users to build an anthology by selecting from
1500 AmLit texts, and I "invented" a couple modes of selection,
including what is called an "anchor volume" (one that is preselected for
the user to give the basics of a period or topic).  So I asked a patent
lawyer friend if this modular concept could be patented or copyrighted,
and the answer (I was surprised) is yes to patent,but only recently. 
That is, one can now (in the US only?) patent a "process" not just a
gizmo.  (I should note that I am not pursuing any patents.)

yrs
John

___________
John Bryant, English Department, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549
>>> James Cummings <[log in to unmask]> 06/05/08 11:48 AM >>>
Hi all,

In the discussion of copyright terms with regard to textual works, what 
always strikes me as strange from a sociological point of view is the 
difference between the terms for copyright and for patents.

If I sit down and invent some new and useful technology that benefits 
humanity and jump through the significant hurdles to patent this 
technology then I can get a patent for up to 20 years, though I have to 
renew it every 5 years.  If I write a some doggerel verse and place it 
on a webpage, I automatically have copyright in that work , have no 
registration process, and the term lasts for 70 years after my death. 
(I'm using UK law here, and oversimplifying,  your mileage may vary.)  I

often use the following flow-chart in teaching: 
http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/private.pdf

It isn't that I don't prize my own talents, it has just always seemed 
out of place that having a monopoly on who has the rights to print my 
poem is so much more than the having a monopoly on the production of 
some technology I've invented.  Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't 
want patent monopolies to last 70 years after the death of the 
inventor.  Much more I'd like to see the reverse, copyright 
significantly shortened or limited to the author's lifetime, or 
something else entirely.  It seems silly to me that John should have to 
worry about making an encylopedia of Chandlerisms (and indeed in another

21 years he wouldn't have to worry at all), but that if I want to use 
some technology patented in the mid-80s I am free to do so.   Of course 
John is free to get a license from the Chandler estate or just take the 
risk.  Copyright infringement is all about risk... the risk of whether 
the owners will mind enough to pursue you for damages.  What we should 
make clear, from a legal point of view, is that copyright infringement 
itself is not a crime, but a civil infringement of copyright law.  Thus 
when you infringe copyright you aren't taken to jail but sued for 
(perceived) losses in the civil courts.  It only becomes a criminal act 
under most countries laws when someone is profiting from the 
infringement (i.e. by selling copies) or permanently depriving the owner

of the work (theft).  In the UK this is because the laws are mostly 
about economic rather than moral rights.

Is it that we prize literary and artistic works much higher than we do 
technological innovation?  Or is it the reverse, that we view that 
literary works are of so much less value that they aren't individually 
as important to humanity and so we don't need such a limited term of 
monopoly ownership in them?  My doggerel verse may be wonderful, but 
however good it is, it won't cure a disease or allow people to listen to

music without headphones...why is my monopoly so much more for the verse

than the technological innovations?

Just my two pence,

-James

-- 
Dr James Cummings, Research Technologies Service, University of Oxford
James dot Cummings at oucs dot ox dot ac dot uk