Can two unique inventions that do the same thing be patented? Let's say I get a patent issued for a process/formulation that cures a disease or treats damaged hair. Can someone else come along and invent something that cures the same disease or repairs hair, but they found a totally different chemical, process, and formulation? Maybe a better way of asking is: can you patent the result or function of an invention?
Yes - patents are not for results but for devices and processes that can achieve the result. An airplane and a helicopter can have similar results; more than one medication helps to reduce blood sugar levels.
You can write anything you want (basic First Amendment protections): the question is whether one would be liable for damage that arises from what you're written, or whether you can distribute what you've written. Distribution may be restricted, thanks to the Commerce Clause (hence FDA regulations, which figure prominently in the analysis). Most software writers are not medical practitioners, and vice versa, and what the software writer does is implement something described by a competent medical practitioner. It is logically possible that a med. practitioner might also try to write software (no problem) and distribute it (possibly a problem); or, a software writer might read up on something on Wikipedia and try to implement it (again, no problem) or distribute it (possible problem). Damages can be sorted into two categories, implementation errors and scientific errors, and having ruled out deliberate sabotage, we are left with negligence. If the software writer failed to use suitable care in writing code that sums a set of numbers, the software writer has been negligent. If the person purporting to have the qualified scientific knowledge mis-states the formula, that person has been negligent. It is possible for many parties to be negligent (the programmer failed to be diligent in understanding the software requirements; the medical professional failed to adequately explain what was required of the program). The FDA does regulate medical devices, and "device" is construed pretty broadly (condoms are non-exempt class 2 medical devices). There is FDA guidance on medical software which makes it clear that the device manufacturer shoulders the regulatory burden. Anytime you manufacture a tangible thing (which is within the scope of FDA regulation for medical devices), you have to have the thing approved. Many (most?) medical devices implement software, and are thus within the scope of FDA scrutiny. It is not illegal to write software that ends up being implemented in an unapproved medical device, but the unapproved medical device itself is illegal. It is reasonably likely that purported medical software (not a gadget with software build in) would be held to be a non-exempt device. To know if something is exempt, you would look at the exemptions list, and determine that your program (or thing) is not on or implied by anything on that list. The visual acuity eye chart is a class 1 exempt item, as is the manual toothbrush. There is no way to specifically look for things that are only software, or that contain software, so the search through the list would have to be guided by knowledge of the subject area. Canada is helpful in explaining when software is a regulated medical device. This is non-probative w.r.t. US law but gives you an idea what is likely to be considered a "device". Under Canadian law, the software would be clearly a regulated medical device. The FDA has a power-point that attempts to say something about the matter which warns you that you are on your own and "You will need to go back to study and use the source regulatory documents" to make the determination. Eventually, slide 13, they hint that if you intend the software to be used in diagnosis, prevention, or treatment, then it is a device (so, yes, the aforementioned software would be a device, and probably not exempt from regulations). General purpose software (word processors, web browsers, communications software, etc.) are not indented to be used for a regulated purpose, although they can be so used, and thus they are probably not subject to FDA regulation. There is a murky relationship between regulatory approval and liability. Being approved by the government does not convey immunity to negligence suits (see Wyeth v. Levine), but being approved can have weight in determining whether a party was negligent, since regulatory scrutiny ostensibly filters out errors that could have been caught. Federal approval does not preempt state tort law, as the court ruled. Regulations pertaining to medical devices hold for anything that qualifies as a device, and is not defined (negatively) in terms of disclaimers. If you sell a medical device but label it saying "this is not a medical device, it is not created by a competent medical practitioner", that doesn't make it not a medical device. Unfortunately, what counts as a regulated device is based on intended use, and there is an obvious connection between disclaimers and intentions. Taking MS Word as an example, MS does not as far as I know say that "Word is not intended to be used as a medical device". It can certainly be used to diagnose, teat, and prevent medical conditions, but so too can a screw driver or pretty much anything else. The number of non-medical uses vastly outweigh the medical uses, so it would be deemed not to be a regulated device. A program which prescribed a set of prayers to be uttered in case of illness would be subject to First Amendment override of any FDA regulations. Quack medical devices are prohibited (that's why there is regulation of devices in the first place), but discerning the fine line between permitted actions based on nutty beliefs and forbidden actions is not easy. The FDA also has guidance on the distinction between "Complementary and Alternative Medicine", which does not clearly state that, for example, a software reading of your cakra-energies based on a computer program's questions is not a medical device. They do say of mind-body medicine (mentioning yoga, biofeedback and tai chi as examples) that "CAM practices in this domain would not be subject to our jurisdiction under the Act or the PHS Act", but then say "any equipment or other products used as part of the practice of mind-body medicine may be subject to FDA regulation, depending on the nature of the product and its intended use" (hence a yoga-enabling program may be subject to regulation).
First, even if your competitor is operating outside the jurisdiction of your patents, you also have protection from the use and import of the infringing products, not just the manufacture and sale. For example, if you have a US patent, your patent would allow you to sue airlines using your product in the US (e.g., flying into, out of, and/or within the US), even if they bought the product from a foreign competitor. Suing potential customers isn't as attractive as suing your competitors, but at least you would have that option. Further, it is possible to apply for a patent in multiple countries (e.g., through the PCT process), although it can get expensive to try to obtain protection in a large number of countries. You can try to target the main jurisdictions in which your product would be made, sold, or used. For example, you could apply in the US, China, and various European countries (through the EPO).
There is a history of "giving away patents", which allows the original grantor to foster innovation instead of stifle it. Here are some examples: Sealand Industries - ISO Shipping Container Patented the standard shipping container, then gave away the patent royalty free, allowing a revolution in ocean going shipping. Annually it is estimated that $440 billion are shipped through these containers. Tesla - 200+ patents Elon Musk announced that the company "will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.". Toyota - Hydrogen Fuel Cell Patents Released 5,680 patents related to hydrogen fuel cells Toyota also released a lot of patents related to development of the Prius The grant of a patent provides the ability for the grantor to pursue infringement lawsuits against companies or individuals, but it does not obligate them to do so. You can give away your patent, open it up to broad licensing, or just openly state that you will not enforce any action related to the lawsuit similar to how Tesla did it.
It would seem that your song is a derived work. You took the original work and found words that sound the same. If the original work had used different words, your work would have ended up differently. So you have a derived work. Same as making a translation; if the original was different, then the translation would be different, so the translation is a derived work. I was asked "How is this not straight up infringement". But it is. Not only copying is an exclusive right of the copyright holder, but also the creation of derivative works.
A patent can be fairly broad if it meets the requirements, two of the most important being novelty and non-obviousness. However, it is difficult for an idea to be broad and still meet the requirements. Let's use the Blackberry example. Blackberry almost certainly has some specific patents. But smartphone is way too vague. The desirability for something to be smart is obvious. What about wireless text messaging? HAM radio operators were sending wireless text messages in the 60s (my father had a setup). So, this fails the novelty requirement, already been done. Next, consider: text messaging via cellular wireless. You might be able to patent this, but whoever invented cellular technology probably already considered it and beat you to it. Need to be more specific ... It would take some research, but I am guessing that Blackberry has a patent for a specific messaging system, i.e, protocols for sending, receiving, and storing messages. But, that won't stop someone else from developing their own messaging system. Finally, note that in a highly competitive, profitable business such as smartphones, there are many patents, and the patent owners will often believe that another patent is in conflict with theirs. Legal battles can take years to resolve.
If I draw something, having been inspired by looking at some other thing, you are not copying that thing. If you carefully copy something even if you are also deliberately changing features of the original, then you are copying. Copyright law gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to make copies. There is a difference between copying music and visual art in this respect, since music can be reduced to a small set of specific symbols, so "being inspired by" a musical work is often found to be infringement. The difficult part is legally distinguishing "making a copy" versus "being inspired by". The courts use a subjective test of "substantial similarity" to decide if there has been copying. the case of Mannion v. Coors. "Pose" is an element that is considered in assessing similarity: the question the court would ask (itself) is whether such a pose could ever have come from elsewhere (such as, your own creative efforts).
You will want to speak with a patent attorney, not a labor attorney. Some of the facts you are presenting are entirely wrong. Patents have inventors, copyrights have authors. Inventorship has strict rules. Inventorship cannot be denied without consequence in almost any jurisdiction, but you'll need to get local legal advice. In the US, "A patent is invalid unless it lists the first and true inventor or inventors of the claimed invention." (See Stark v. Advanced Magnetics, 119 F.3d 1551, 1553, 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1997); 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) (“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . . he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented). See also 35 U.S.C. §§ 111, 115-16, 256.) Assignment--the "ownership" of the patent--is different. It's very common to have you sign an agreement as a condition of your employment that you grant full assignment to your company for any patentable material created under their employ. If you did not, it is possible that the company would need to give you consideration for the right to assignment, e.g., they would have to pay you something to own the patent. If you are no longer there, that "something" can be substantial, because the patent is invalid without it, and they have little leverage over you. Bring all written records, emails, etc. to a licensed attorney who specializes in patent litigation.