> Is it fair to call copyright "a monopoly on an idea"? IMHO that's a fair description of patents, but not copyright. First reason: copyright doesn't give you

> Is it fair to call copyright "a monopoly on an idea"? IMHO that's a fair description of patents, but not copyright. First reason: copyright doesn't give you a true monopoly, not in the same way that patents do. With a true monopoly over an idea, you can prevent other people from using the idea even if they came up with it independently. Patents do that, copyright doesn't. Second, copyright - in theory, anyway - doesn't protect ideas, only a particular expression of an idea. (Again c.f. patents, which do protect ideas). > Why do we have IP-laws? What are their purpose? For copyright, Richard Posner (a US judge) wrote a good essay on the subject at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/89land1.html http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/89land1.html .