5 ms·
The difference between copyright and patents is that as a property right, copyright has a clear boundary: you know whether you copied someone else's stuff [1].
by derf_ 12y ago
The difference between copyright and patents is that as a property right, copyright has a clear boundary: you know whether you copied someone else's stuff [1]. You can infringe a patent without knowing of its existence, and even if you do know and actively try to work around it, the only reliable way to determine if you are successful is in an expensive lawsuit.
Imagine if you wanted to put an addition on your house and needed to file a multi-million dollar lawsuit that could stretch over a decade before you could determine whether it would cross your neighbor's property line.
[1] There's still some gray area around fair use, but the contrast with patents is night and day.
- baddox 12y ago> copyright has a clear boundary: you know whether you copied someone else's stuff You can violate a copyrighted song by writing a song with a similar melody or motif. In the U.S., the accuser needs to prove that you previously heard the original song, but not that you were aware of the similarity or purposefully copied the musical idea.
- nullc 12y ago> the accuser needs to prove that you previously heard Yes, indeed there are corner cases; and ugly outcomes. At the limit anyone can sue anyone for anything. But by broad strokes, both in theory and in practise the situation around copyright is far more clear, and appears to produce less collateral damage.
- pjc50 12y agoThe real estate situation happens sometimes, in countries without proper cadastral mapping and central registries. It's why title insurance exists.