Patents and copyrights are both types of intellectual property that often involves creativity. Yet, the exclusive financial rights period of a patent holder and a copyright holder are vastly different. To this point, a patent holder's exclusive financial rights are for a period of only 20 years. Additionally, the patent holder must disclose the "secret sauce," the methodology the patent holder used in producing the invention. Once the 20 years expire, the invention becomes part of the public domain for anyone to exploit. Conversely, a copyright holder's exclusive rights are for the life of the copyright holder plus an additional 70 years. This means a lucrative copyright can provide economic rewards for multiple generations that is simply not available to a patent holder. Given the fact that patent holders and copyright holders employ their personal creativity in creating intellectual property, is the differential in the periods of exclusive rights justified? In other words, should the exclusive financial right period of a patent holder be the same as the copyright holder? An argument against extending the rights of the patent holder is that inventions are more valuable to society than are copyrighted material. Alhough a copyright represents creativity, it is more esoteric than of practical use. Therefore, by limiting the rights of the patent holder and requiring him or her to disclose the methodology of the invention, the invention will evolve and get even better because other creative individuals would be incentivized economically to exploit and possibly improve the invention. An argument in favor of extending the rights of the patent holder is that creative and talented inventors will be more motivated to spend the time and energy on inventions due to an extended period of exclusive economic rights. Currently, would be inventors may be reluctant to devote significant amount of time on their inventions due to the short period of exclusive economic rights. By extending the exclusive economic rights period, the quality and utility of inventions could be significantly enhanced. Finally, there is the argument that the short period of exclusive economic rights is unfair to the patent holder. This question is worth 10 points. Consider each of the two arguments above separately. In other words, your answer should address the pros and cons of each argument, le., the merits and demerits of each argument. Avoid addressing the essay globally as if it were one question. I am looking for a good distinct and separate analysis of each argument - pro and con. Short answers and answers that lack depth will not eam many points