What you Need to Know about Intellectual Property, Copyright, and Patents

The world will change by the time you finish reading this sentence. Innovation is happening very fast.

It is now very important for professionals to understand the basics of intellectual property, copyright, and patents. If you don’t, what you create today might come under fire tomorrow, through no fault of your own.

This article is my attempt to help you understand these terms, and to provide a general overview of the landscape as it stands today. I will not reference any specific country, region, or law. I will treat these issues as they affect the entire world.

Important: This article is a brief and simplified overview of these concepts as I understand them. My definitions and explanations may be inaccurate and reflect my personal views. They are not legal or practical advice about patents, technology, or intellectual property. Please consult a lawyer before taking any action. Just treat this article as one more opinion on the state of affairs. And don’t forget these terms mean different things in different countries.

What is Property?

The idea of property isn’t alien to any of us. By law, a physical and tangible object can be owned, and the owner has the right to exploit this property for economic and personal gain. Some countries forbid owning certain physical objects, like guns, nuclear weapons, banned books, head scarves, or even websites.

Why is it important to have ownership?

This can be debated, but some of the most important reasons are:

Scarcity – If you enter a store to buy a camera and only one is left, what happens when someone else wants it? If people worry that something can be taken away at any moment, they will always feel stressed.
Social development – If you have a shelter for your family, you can live peacefully and be more productive to society as a whole. Also, if you are skilled with a tool, society benefits when you use it instead of an idiot who just covets it but can’t do any good with it.
Complexity – If no one owns or takes responsibility for things, who will? There are billions of people and even more physical objects that we use.
Responsibility – Ownership leaves a mark. If you do something wrong, society can trace it back to you.
Justice – Many have tried to define justice. If fairness is part of justice, then citizens must be treated fairly and given equal opportunities.

What is Intellectual Property?

Intellectual property is a relatively new term (first used in 1867, according to Wikipedia). Not everyone agrees on its meaning.

In general terms, though, the definition goes like this:

Intellectual property rights are the rights given to persons over the creations of their minds. They usually give the creator an exclusive right over the use of his/her creation for a certain period of time. – World Trade Organization (WTO)

Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce. – World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

It all comes down to the creations of your mind. Here are some examples:

You create a new cartoon character.
You put together a new drug.
You write something, such as poems, blogs, or software code.
You design a new mobile phone that you can also eat if you’re hungry.
You photograph in a public setting.

Humans covet things. There is no reason not to value our own creations, even if they are flesh-eating zombies. Yet many oppose the term ‘intellectual property’ and the laws that enforce it. Why?

Why is there so much controversy over intellectual property?

Here are some reasons given by individuals on why intellectual property (IP) isn’t property:

IP is not scarce. Copying it does not stop the owner from using their own copy. Everyone can have their own copy
What if someone else invents the same thing independently? Equal opportunity suggests both should have a claim to that creation. E.g., if a software company claims its code is unique, how can anyone know if somebody somewhere, among the millions of coders worldwide, hasn’t coded some of its parts individually, and possibly prior to this company’s effort? Who should win first prize – the kid who finished the essay first, or the kid who threw his arms up first and said “I’m done”?
Monopoly – some people believe intellectual property should be renamed intellectual monopoly. E.g., if you own a house and design it in a specific way, it does not give you the right to stop others from building houses. However, if your house is a monument and you charge people for entry, you won’t like it very much if a competitor copied the exact same thing and charge half the price. The competitor’s monument does not affect your monument, only your income. Therefore, intellectual property as a concept is worthless unless the right to exploit it exists alongside. Contrast this to normal property. What you really get with IP is a monopoly on that exact idea or concept or formula, for a limited period.
Implementation – Intellectual property is hard to enforce. Over the past fifteen years, many forms of IP have been copied. Designer clothes, movies, songs, scripts, software, drugs, and mobile phones are all copied. Some copies are even distributed for free. That’s the problem with monopolization – it angers those who are left out, and they feel they are being cheated. It’s similar to what happens when a local warlord builds a fence around the only water body, for his private consumption. What do you think is going to happen? Similarly, there is no court or government or corporation on earth that has been able to stem the tide of intellectual property theft.
It does not make sense – if a thousand years ago a carpenter was popular because of his great skill, and another carpenter opened shop nearby with the same tools, where would the people go? This is the nature of competition – would the first carpenter be angry that the other guy has the same tools, or whether the other guy is probably good enough to take away some of his customers if not all of them? If a company invents a new technology or drug, and another copies it, it does not stop the first company from selling it. What could happen though, is if the second company is a large corporation, and the innovator is a small startup, the large competitor could use its muscle to make life difficult for the newcomer. Even with intellectual property laws in place, who would win this battle anyway?
Intellectual property is slippery and can be easily copied. Laws cannot guarantee perfect protection. Regular property laws do not work perfectly either. In the end, the person caught with the stolen copy suffers while others escape.

Anyway, it’s for each individual to understand and interpret the meaning of intellectual property. I’ll leave you with this quote from Wikipedia:

“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Isaac McPherson on August 13, 1813

The two types of intellectual property we are concerned with are:

Copyright
Patent

What is a Copyright?

I’ll go with Wikipedia’s definition, which is as good as any:

A copyright gives the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time. Copyright may apply to a wide range of creative, intellectual, or artistic forms, or “works”. Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed.

The key point is that copyrights usually cover artistic work. It’s strange how children are taught to copy at school, but then suddenly one day that privilege is taken away!

Some countries have simple copyright procedures. Others have complex or even non-existent processes. It is not uncommon for some parties to copy whole movies in another language, in a different country. The biggest problem though, is that in countries where copyright isn’t enforced, any claim to copyright will be a long drawn-out affair. The mentality among those who copy has always been: “Can we get away with it?”

There are a lot of valid points in favor of copyright:

If you write a script, but somebody copies it and makes a movie without acknowledging or paying you, is it fair?
If you create music, and somebody rips it off and sells it to those who make corporate videos on the cheap, is it fair?
If you write a blog post, but somebody at a consulting firm copies your words and sells it as an ebook, is it fair?

What is a Patent?

Let’s stick to Wikipedia again:

A patent grants an inventor exclusive rights to make, use, sell, and import an invention for a limited period of time, in exchange for the public disclosure of the invention. An invention is a solution to a specific technological problem, which may be a product or a process.

The differences between a patent and a copyright, as far as I understand it, are as follows:

Copyright is usually limited to creative or artistic work. A patent is usually for inventions and processes for businesses or inventors or developers, etc.
Copyright law only punishes copying. A patent stops others from copying and gives the holder extra protection. It gives you exclusive rights to use and reproduce your invention.
A copyright need not always make sense, but a patent must.
A patent must be made public. Everyone can see how it works, but no one can copy it. A copyrighted work does not have to be public.

Because the two concepts evolved separately, they have different agendas and aims. They also cover different kinds of individuals, products or bodies. Whether they are the right tools to protect intellectual property in the future, is another question entirely.

Who benefits from patents?

Humanity usually benefits from standing on the shoulders of those who have passed. In other words, by copying. Patent laws try to give the holders a temporary time-bound privilege only. There are some strong reasons for patents:

Incentive – humans need a pat on the back, or their own yacht. The pursuit of financial gain is a strong motivator. If you know your work is protected, you will forge ahead.
Recognition – humans like to stand out, even if it’s just while facing a mirror. A patent (as does a copyright) acknowledges the holder as the author of the work – for all time.
If man believes he has the right to earn from the fruits of his physical labor, then why not his intellectual property? Similarly, if man covets material possessions for personal gain, what is wrong in exploiting intellectual property as if it were a tangible privilege?
The law already allows discrimination in business. E.g., if you choose to sell your services to one business but not another, you don’t have to justify your choice, even if you made the choice based on illegal profiling. A cinematographer or composer has the right to choose whom he or she works with, and the reasons don’t always have be given under oath. If such is the case, then why can’t those who hold intellectual property discriminate based on only those who are willing to pay?

Basically humans are complex creatures, with wildly conflicting thoughts, feelings, motivations and ideas. If humans steal, they also lie. If they tell the truth, they also keep mum. If they cry for help, they also stand as mute spectators when a public accident takes place. Humans don’t like others taking credit for what they have achieved. How would you feel if you start a joke to your group of friends but somebody else cuts you off midway and finishes it for you? We are as envious as we are altruistic.

It is no accident that our patent laws reflect our own selves. Here are some murky areas:

If employees create something, who owns it – the employees or the organization that employs them?
If an organization attains a patent, exploits it, and goes out of business, the patents can be sold. Does the buyer of the patent have a right to exploit something that they have not created?
Some laws extend the length of patents. How long should an organization hold a patent? If toilets are scarce, how long can one use them when there is a line?
Ultimately, do people other than the patent holders really benefit? E.g., if the idea or intellectual property were given away freely, more people would benefit. If a patent holder sells to only those who can pay, the number of people who benefit will be far lesser.
Is any idea truly unique? Patents are usually for complex inventions. Many parts of an invention build on earlier public technologies or even someone else’s ideas. Does this mean only large corporations and organizations can hold on to patents? Who will protect those who can’t afford to patent something, or who, by nature of geography, physical issues, social conditions, etc., does not have access to a patent office or patent law?
Finally, differences in patent laws mean that your location matters. But why should it?

I hope I’ve given you a general overview of the concepts underlying intellectual property, copyrights and patents.

If you’d like to learn more, read with the articles published by WIPO. But please don’t ask me for specific advice!