It's because of patents, for example, that iPods can't just be taken apart, copied and made by whomever and sold to compete with Apple. Well, paritially because of patents. To get a more complete understanding, to truly understand why Microsoft had to design the Zune instead of just make iPods, you have to know the full "intellectual property" world.

The Big Picture: Intellectual Property

These terms, such as patents and intellectual property, are often familiar to most people but not fully understood. Let's draw the big outer circle first and work our way inward. Intellectual property is, just as the name implies, a type of property. You have your shoes, that's property, your PS3, that's property, your house, property and you have that story that you wrote in 5th grade about the monster tree that came alive and pulled apart all the dogs in the neighborhood. You were one sick puppy. No pun intended. But yes, that weird story is also your property - your intellectual property.

There are generally four types of intellectual property: patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. Your 5th grade story falls under the "copyright" category. Basically, any story, book, song, article, etc., just about anything that you write down or record is protected by copyright. But we're not going to get into the other types of intellectual property too much here, after all, this article is about patents.

How does one get a patent and where does the attorney come in?

I lied. Just to make sure you understand, we'll talk about copyrights just a bit more for comparison sake. A copyright is granted the moment you write the piece of work down on paper. Did you write it down? That's it, you own a copyrighted work. A patent, however, goes through a much more complicated process. So complicated, in fact, that no ordinary attorney can do it for you. Broadly speaking, to get a patent you must prove that your idea is new, and that your idea is useful. Who do you need to prove this to? Why, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), of course.

So unlike a copyright, which is granted just upon recordation, a patent must be applied for by filing a patent application with the USPTO.  Let me tell you something about the USPTO. It's a government agency, like the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and dozens of others. But did you know that other than the USPS, the people who deliver our mail, the USPTO receives the largest volume of mail per year out of all government agencies? There are over 7,000 employees working at the USPTO trying to review all of those patent applications coming in every day, but they are terribly behind. To the point where it could take anywhere from 2-5 years before your patent application gets granted - if it ever gets granted at all! Big difference from granted upon conception, eh?

So you can imagine, with all this backlog and all this mail, the USPTO has a strong interested in filtering the incoming communication and limiting it to those who know the law of patents as much as possible. This is why only attorneys that pass a special test can file papers with the USPTO. All attorney must pass test called the bar exam in order to work as and call themselves attorneys, but if they want to work with inventors and file patent applications with the USPTO, they must also pass the patent bar exam.  And not all attorneys can take the patent bar exam, only those that have a degree in a technical field that the USPTO believes will qualify them to understand patentable technology.

Ok, So the USPTO is Busy and the Patent Attorney Must Jump Through Some Hoops... What About Day to Day Work?

A patent attorney generally does one of two things: patent prosecution or patent litigation. Patent prosecution refers to writing a patent application and arguing back and forth in a long song and dance with the USPTO over those 2-5 years to convince the USPTO to grant the patent. Patent litigation refers to filing lawsuits in courts to enforce the patent rights for the patent owner. Remember at the beginning we said that a patent owner has the right to be the only one allowed to make, use or sell the invention? If anyone does one of these three things without the patent owner's permission, the patent owner can sue them and get paid in a number of ways.

These are the two major tasks of patent attorneys, prosecution and litigation, getting the patents and enforcing them. Each one is complicated in itself, so often times a patent attorney will focus on one or the other. If the attorney focuses on patent prosecution, the attorney may have hundreds of clients and be managing hundreds of patent applications that are slowly being examined by the USTPO. Day to day, the attorney will have various due dates arriving in various cases - need to respond to the USTPO in this case today, have another response due next week for another case so time must be set aside for that, etc.

If the attorney focuses on litigation, the attorney will most often work on one case at a time, depending on how large the case is. Sometimes, the attorney will work with a team of attorneys on a single case for months, studying the patent at the center of the lawsuit and studying the law to prepare the best arguments for their client.

Ok, I got it now. So how much do patent attorneys make?

Ah, it's not about the money, right? Right? You seem to be nodding your head and saying yes it is. Well, it is a niche field of law, and since it requires a few special extras like the technical degree and the patent bar, it can be pretty lucrative. But like any job, the real ideal is to do something you enjoy that pays enough, and if you enjoy reading about new inventions and enjoy arguing, seriously consider putting in the time to become a patent attorney. I'm sure you'll find it pays enough!

What this means is that you have the legal right to stop others from stealing your property in a court of law. By understanding the benefits of copyright protection, you can fully utilize the control you have of your work.

One benefit of registering your work includes being able to sell your copyright under your own terms. For example, if you write a song then you can sell that song to a band or record company while ensuring that all credit goes to you. This includes licensing your work while still holding ownership. You also have the right to object your work's use if it becomes distorted in the hands of those you licensed it to.

The last thing that anyone wants is to bring a dispute to court. It does become necessary, however, and there is no better tool than a good lawyer and a registered copyright. What judge can argue with hard evidence such as a legally registered date? A registered copyright will give its owner the ability to declare damages and a ensure a favorable decision nine times out of ten.

Of course, registering your work with the US Copyright Office is not legally required. You own the rights to your work the moment you begin to create it. Obtaining a registered copyright, however, is the only way to legally protect yourself should a dispute arise. Therefore, it is highly recommended that you protect yourself in any and every way possible.

Copyright is a federal issue, and as such all cases are tried in the US District Court. Each state has at least one of these courts. Assuming that your work is registered with the US Copyright Office, proving your ownership of the copyrighted material will be a cake walk. The difficulty comes in proving the defendant copied it in the first place. Courts do not require direct proof of copying to declare infringement. You must prove that the defendant had access to your work and that his or her work is replicated as a result of this access. On the other hand, if your opponent can prove that he did not have access to your work then he is not liable for copyright infringement, even if his work is a direct replica of your own. If in our example we had performed our song in public, then the court would find the defendant guilty of infringement due to a "reasonable opportunity to view the work."

Before the case even begins, you can file for a preliminary injunction. This will prevent the defendant from producing further copies of the work during the trial. A down payment will usually be required, however, in the instance that the defendant is found not guilty and damages are brought. A preliminary injunction becomes a permanent injunction after the defendant is found guilty.

Money damages are another remedy to copyright infringement. If the court decides in your favor then you are entiltled to not only your actual damages but any profit that the defendent made as well. The determining factor of your actual damages lies in whether or not your work suffered in market value due to the infringment. Proof of actual damages is difficult, so federal law provides statutory damages of $500 to $20,000 per act of infringement.

Copyright is considered property, as decided by the 1908 Supreme Court case of Continental Paper Bag v. Eastern Paper Bag. In this case, the court decided that intellectual property held the same rights as physical property. For example, if you had in your possession a priceless piece of art that was stolen and sold on the black market, it would parallel writing a hit song that was stolen and played on the radio. In both of these examples, your property, be it physical or intellectual, was illegally stolen.

Initially, copyright was created so that governments could restrict printing, but that is obviously not what it is used for anymore. Now, it is used to promote new works by giving authors control and profit opportunities. Before the advent of copyright, works were rarely published due to lack of ownership. This means that just about anyone could claim credit for works of which they had nothing to do with.

Now, however, copyrights have been internationally standardized due to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. This original French sentiment soon became the world standard as countries around the globe adhered to droit d'auteur, or "right of the author."

There are limitations of copyright, especially in recent years. With the development of digital media and ever-growing computer technologies, reinterpretations have been prompted. These new interpretations may introduce new difficulties in enforcing those who break copyright law, as well as challenge the basic fundamental philosophy of what copyright is.

There is no clear definition of transformative purposes, as it varies from case to case and judge to judge. US law makers must keep a delicate balance of fair use as to not limit or prevent free speech, while alternately protecting the rights of the copyright owner. Without fair use, premission would be needed to properly review any work. If this were the case then authors and musicians could effectivly stiffle any negative reviews or comments about their work.

The implementation of fair use can fall into two categories: comment and parady.

If you are reviewing a novel or a song, fair use allows you to use direct quotes from the work to fully convey your analysis. In the case of Wright v. Warner Books, Inc., Richard Wright sued Warner Books for quoting six unpublished letters and ten unpublished journal entries. Though they were not published, Wright still owned the legal copyright of his work. The court decided, however, that because less than one percent of the letters were copied and because their purpose was informational, that Warner Books was implementing fair use.

A parody is any work that makes fun of another work. The work being ridiculed is often well known, and the creator is unlikely to agree to his work being ridiculed. An example is when Saturday Night Live parodied "I love New York" and transformed it into "I love Sodom." In the court case Elsmere Music, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., the ruling was the only the words, "I love" and four musical notes were copied and therefore SNL was excersizing fair use.

In the example of suing for copyright infringement, there is a three year statute of limitations. There is some confusion, however, as to when the three year marker begins. Some courts will declare that the three years begins after the first instance of infringement, while others will determine that it begins after the last instance.

Another difference of opinion lies in which infringements you are due damages from. While most courts will grant you monetary damages for all examples of copyrighted infringement, other courts may only grant your reward for the past three years of infringement.

In other words, you should file a lawsuit for copyright infringement as soon as possible. If your complaint of infringement lies outside of the three year statue of limitations then you do not have a case and there is no point in moving on from there. It is highly suggested that you discuss this with an attorney.

If you are past the three year statute and another infringement occurs, you are entitled to those damages. Most courts, however, will not grant you damages preceding the three year statute of limitations.

Being familiar with legal lingo is also key to keeping your rights. If you are unaware of the difference between terms such as "usage" and "full" rights, then a Copyright lawyer is highly suggested. Usage translates to a one time use only, while full rights mean that the buyer now has 100% control of the work, including due credit. Many people have fallen into legal holes because of misconseptions - each word in a legally binding contract means something important. A copyright lawyer will be able to explain these terms and even advise you as to a proper course of action.

Not just any lawyer is suggested pertaining to your copyright, but get a lawyer that specializes in the field. Do not use a lawyer that you used in the past because he won your case then - lawyers specialize in different fields. That nice guy who helped you in your car accident most likely is not up to date with recent court decisions that involve the ever changing world of the internet. Copyright lawyers stay current on recent rulings that involve copyright, this means that they know how to do their job.

So how do you obtain copyright? Simply by creating original material constitutes protecting it as well. The problem arises if or when someone decides that they like your work so much that they credit it as their own. All flattery aside this is a very serious and all too common issue. Simply swearing that you wrote it first will not hold up in a court of law. So what will?

There are two different ways to give some backbone to your copyright. The first is to register it with the US Copyright office, and the second is to do what is known as the "poor man's copyright."

Registering with the US Copyright Office includes a copyright claim application, payment of the $30 registration fee, and a deposit of at least two copies of the work. There are five different application forms, depending on what it is that you are copyrighting. They are as follows:

• Form TX for published or unpublished non-dramatic literary works
• Form VA for visual arts
• Form SE for periodicals and serial works
• Form SR for published or unpublished sound recordings
• Form PA for published or unpublished works of the performing arts

Once you fill out one of these bad boys and mail it off with your $30 registration fee and at least two copies of the work you have a legal record of original creation.

The second way to obtain copyright is largely less popular. This is because the poor man's copyright is easy to fake, and is rarely successful if needed in court. But for the struggling artist who cannot afford the $30 registration fee, this process is highly preferred to nothing at all.

To initiate the poor man's copyright, simply seal your original work in an envelope and take it to your local US post office. Mail it to yourself and DO NOT open it when the envelope arrives. The post date provides a legal date of creation if needed. You see how easy that is? Therein lies the problem: the poor man's copyright is so easy to fake that it is rarely taken seriously in court. My recommendation is to officially register your work with the US Copyright Office.

YouTube: law suits are coming

Cuban also said YouTube would eventually be "sued into oblivion" because of copyright violations. "They are just breaking the law," Cuban told a group of advertisers in New York. "The only reason it hasn't been sued yet is because there is nobody with big money to sue."

Sorting out the intellectual property rights issues of video on the Web is a thorny issue. That's what Cuban had in mind when he made his comments about why it didn't make sense to buy YouTube.

The site has become so popular with its mix of amateur and professional video that people view 100 million videos there a day. YouTube.com, has provoked a frenzy of consternation among executives of record labels, TV networks and movie studios. For millions of Internet users, the site that opened to the public less than a year ago provides a daily fix of odd and interesting video clips, from White House speeches to frat house pranks.

Risky business?

There have been rumors that YouTube has been looking to sell itself for $1 billion or more, although the site's rising popularity has pushed up its operating costs to an estimated $900,000 to $1.5 million a month which makes buying YouTube a risky endeavor for investors.

Copyright holders may seek Digital Millennium Copyright Act changes if suits against YouTube and its users, as well as other such sites, don't stem the flow of copyrighted material online, HDNet Chmn. Mark Cuban said on his blog. Sites like YouTube now seem to come under the law's safe harbor, but if infringing material continues to proliferate someone "might get mad and try to change the DMCA," Cuban said: "If the lawsuits don't work, then they will give the politicians in D.C. lots and lots of money to get the DMCA changed, again."

YouTube, the giant of dwarfs

YouTube, which has nearly one-third of the U.S. Web video audience, three times that of Google Inc., or twice that of News Corp's MySpace, has been working on signing licensing deals with music companies and TV networks to ensure they are paid when users view their content.

YouTube recently unveiled its first deal to distribute music videos legally from a major music company by agreeing a deal with Warner Music Group, home to pop stars James Blunt and Madonna.

YouTube now offers advertising through banner ads, promotions and sponsorships. It has said it plans to roll out a range of different advertising options over the coming year.

If YouTube overcomes its copyright hazards there is no reason why it could not become a very interesting candidate for a takeover. Set aside the possible copyright infringement law suits, YouTube may well become a multi-billion booming business.