Subject: PP4 From: "William J. Rapaport" Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:23:23 -0400 (EDT) A student writes: "I was looking at Position Paper #4 and I saw premise 8 "Nothing can be both patented and copyrighted. * Note: This premise is a matter of law. You must accept it as true. But you can argue that the law should be changed." The 'Note:' Seems to be inaccurate to me. I see no reason why something could not be both patented and copyrighted regardless of what the law states. The law states a lot of things, but it seems to be the case that there are lot's of examples where the laws dictate is violated. What might be better to say is that Nothing can be both patented and copyrighted legally. Of course I think this depends also on what we take to be the litmus test for when a work becomes copyrighted/patented. Suppose we take it to be the case that something is copyrighted/patented once all the appropriate paper work is filled and authorized by the appropriate governmental entities. In this case I see no reason why both sets of paperwork(Copyright and Patent) could not both be filed and both authorized. It may be the case then that one of the statuses no longer holds legal weight, but until that is challenged in court (and the paperwork redacted) it seems reasonable to me that there could be a singular work both copyrighted and patented." Reply: I accept your amendment, but, to be consistent, you need to amend statement 10 to also include the adverb "legally". In any case, feel free to include this comment as part of your discussion. Others should feel free either to include it or to comment on it.