3 ms·
Treating the intangible as property was long established in common law, not just with regard to patents and copyright, but many other things. Blackstone lists,
by kahirsch 16y ago
Treating the intangible as property was long established in common law, not just with regard to patents and copyright, but many other things. Blackstone lists, for example, ten kinds of "incorporeal hereditaments": http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/blackstone/william/comment/book2.3.html http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/blackstone/william/comment/b...
The clause in the Constitution about granting exclusive rights was not creating something brand new, but just assigning the power to do it to the federal government instead of the states.
- stcredzero 16y agoIn the state of Texas, software is considered a "tangible good" for the purpose of taxation.
- sabat 16y agoTreating the intangible as property was long established in common law Allowing copyright and patent monopoly was allowed, yes. That's not the same thing as "property," which is the point I'm making here. clause in the Constitution about granting exclusive rights was not creating something brand new, but just assigning the power to do it to the federal government It was not new, agreed. It went beyond just naming who had the power to do it, however. The Bill of Rights laid ground rules for laws Congress could make. There was a lot of debate about the Copyright Clause in particular -- Thomas Jefferson in particular had a lot to say about it, including serious concerns about attempts to treat the knowledge in someone's head as "property". (Yes, he actually addressed that particular issue.)
- kahirsch 16y agoI'm not sure what you mean by "property." The 1709 Statute of Anne, which provided for a limited term of copyright, specifically used the words "property" and "proprietor" in regards to it. There are different kinds of property and limited-term monopolies are one kind of property.