[_stephan]

Copyright and patents are not "fundamentally the same thing". A copyright gives you the right to exclude others from copying a work. A patent gives you more than that right, it gives you a monopoly over an idea (or at least a more or less vaguely defined implementation of an idea). A patent gives you the right to exclude others from using that idea or implementation even if they discovered that idea on their own and didn't copy anything.

[cm2187]

My understanding of copyright is that it applies to the idea too. If you change the names and wording but keep the plot of a novel, even if the text are not strictly identical, you could still be sued for breach of copyright.

[_stephan]

If you "change the names and wording" you're actually copying and making a modification. However, if by pure chance you came up with some say detective story that has a plot very similar to one of the existing billion other detective stories, no can sue you unless there is sufficient evidence that you actually infringed a copyright.

[_stephan]

* no one can sue

[JoshTriplett]

Independent reinvention is a complete defense for copyright (you can't infringe copyright if you didn't copy), but not for patents (someone you've never heard of can sue you).

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

The courts are less clear on that. There's no statutory language that gives you copyright to the idea of a novel (which is dangerously close to genre if you ask me).