Each number is its own question. If I could have 1 link to a source too.

1 . The English Common Law originally provided only for the intellectual property right of the trade secret. No other intellectual property rights, including copyright, were available. Further, the only limited protection one had of a trade secret was simply how well one kept the secret. If one's secret remedy to treat plague somehow became public (unfortunately, there was no such secret), then others could use the formula without compensation. Only if, in the rarest of circumstances, one could prove that the secret was wrongfully taken (say, from a disloyal apprentice) could the court provide a remedy. Today, in the United States, use of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act gives protections to a trade secret, but reverse engineering is allowed to lawfully obtain the secret. Does this make sense? If I am an expert chemist who has reversed the ingredients and portions of Coca-cola, why am I allowed to sell the product, but not to call it Coca Cola? 2.Copyright protection in the United States for literary works currently continue for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. Many other countries recognize copyright protections, but limit the protection strictly to the life of the author. Which rule is more reasonable in your opinion? Defend your position. 3.Patent protection is the United States extends to 20 years only (for the vast majority of patents). Copyright protection in the United States extends for the lifetime of the author plus an additional 70 years. What reasons, if any, support having vastly different years of protection for these two intellectual property rights? Would suciety he better served if all intellectual property rights lasted for the exact same duration? Put forth your position and set forth its strengths and weaknesses