[pp.int.general] "Intellectual property"

[Richard Stallman]

    However different laws might be used to monopolize different parts of
    the same product;

Now I see what you mean (I think), but it is inaccurate to say that
these monopolies "monopolize parts" of the product.  They are so
different that even that generalization is not true.

A patent is a monopoly on using a certain idea which is described in
the patent.  It does not "monopolize any one product."  What it
monopolizes is an idea.  The effect is to restrict a wide range of
possible products.  If Apple has patents on some ideas implemented
implemented in the iBad, they might forbid other products that are
nothing like an iBad, or even part of one.

A trademark is a monopoly on a kind of label or packaging.  It is not
limited to one product and not inherently connected to any product.
Apple could make an AM radio and call it an "iPad", but if you made an
AM radio and called it an "iPad", Apple could sue you.

I am not sure whether Apple could sue you for renting bachelor
apartments and calling them "iPads".  Maybe in some countries it
could.

A copyright does indeed pertain to the use of a specific text or work.
That's the only one of these three which could accurately be said
to "monopolize a part of a product".

The others, even though it might happen that they all relate somehow
to the same iBad, don't "monopolize a part" of it.  They are not
based on any part of it.

If you start your thinking from the term "intellectual property",
you will tend to see similarities between these laws -- but most
of them won't be real.