I'm reading "Open Source Licensing" by Lawrence Rosen.
At page 30 there is written:
A patent differs from a copyright in a fundamental way: A copyright prevents a third party from copying or modifying the original work, but a patent restricts everyone who uses the patented invention whether the invention has been copied or not. Even someone who independently creates the same invention and doesn’t copy the ﬁrst inventor still cannot make, use, sell or offer for sale, or import the patented invention because he’s not the ﬁrst inventor. It makes no difference whether the second inventor even knew of the ﬁrst invention
So if I independently create a work of art, let's say a fiction book, can I make, use sell or offer for sale it?
Let's say I independently create "Harry Potter and the Philosopher Stone" by J. K. Rowling.
Of course I cannot do that without knowing at least what the book is about. I have to at the very least read the Wikipedia page, or a synopsis of the book. Or maybe the book itself. Otherwise I don't know what to write.
Of course I won't copy from the book, just read the synopsis and make my own.
But then that would be a derivative work right? And that is still prohibited by copyright law.
So the difference doesn't seem to spur from the law. The difference seems to be that is impossible to replicate a copyrighted work without "using" it in some way.
While it is possible instead to "reinvent" something.
Is my understanding right?