I still don’t understand the imbalance between a super-drug that saves lives getting only seven years of copyright protection, but music (good, crappy, or indifferent) getting upwards of 100 years or more of copyright protection.
Politics has pumped the literary world vastly more than the technology world, for ill or for good.
We can probably count on there always being a Disney with its private Mickey Mouse as copyright terms keep getting incremented just short of forever.
It's 20 years from the date of the filing of the patent application (which might in extreme cases work out to only 7 years of patent protection). The name of the drug will be trademarked. I don't think any of it is copyrighted.
Interestingly (and I may be wrong about this), I believe there are two different motivations related to the public's interest when it comes to these two different types of legal protection. A patent is aimed at protecting someone who invents something and enables that person to profit from the invention over a specified period of time. The public interest lies in stimulating new inventions over time that help improve our lives in ways that are increasingly cost-efficient. That's why a patent only lasts for a limited period of time.
A copyright, on the other hand, is aimed at protecting published works over long periods of time. There is no "public interest" in allowing someone else to re-write a work of fiction or re-write a musical composition, whereas there is definitely a "public interest" in encouraging inventors to improve upon existing technology, products, etc. In the case of a published work, the protection of the original work is what gives it value.
That's just my take on it.