5 ms·

It should be noted that Thomas Jefferson's opinion on patents changed and he eventually believed that some patents may provide social benefit if only granted fo

by hristov 15y ago

It should be noted that Thomas Jefferson's opinion on patents changed and he eventually believed that some patents may provide social benefit if only granted for a limited time. Interestingly, Thomas Jefferson ended up being the first patent examiner of the United States. The first U.S. patent law said that the secretary of state (Jefferson at the time) was to take a lead role in examining patents. Jefferson was a notoriously difficult examiner and granted very few patents. For more details: http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/patents http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/pate...

SoftwareMaven 15y ago
And, really, that is probably the way it should be. Patents are out of control and not really providing benefit commensurate with their current cost.
dctoedt 15y ago
The Supreme Court has long relied, implicitly and even explicitly, on Jefferson's views about patents. The Court provided a nice recounting of the evolution of those views in Part II of its landmark opinion in Graham v. John Deere & Co.[1] That part of the Graham opinion is definitely worth reading for anyone who has to deal with the U.S. patent system. The Court observed that: --snip-- [Jefferson] rejected a natural rights theory in intellectual property rights and clearly recognized the social and economic rationale of the patent system. The patent monopoly was not designed to secure to the inventor his natural right in his discoveries. Rather, it was a reward, an inducement, to bring forth new knowledge. The grant of an exclusive right to an invention was the creation of society -- at odds with the inherent free nature of disclosed ideas -- and was not to be freely given. Only inventions and discoveries which furthered human knowledge, and were new and useful, justified the special inducement of a limited private monopoly. Jefferson did not believe in granting patents for small details, obvious improvements, or frivolous devices. His writings evidence his insistence upon a high level of patentability. --snip-- (Extra paragraphing added.) The Court noted that Jefferson clearly recognized the difficulty of "drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not." These Jeffersonian views have been part of the underpinnings of U.S. patent policy for decades. [1] 383 U.S. 1 (1966), available at http://supreme.justia.com/us/383/1/case.html http://supreme.justia.com/us/383/1/case.html
- petegrif 15y ago
  excellent summation
- flocial 15y ago
  That's interesting. Are we still following those precedents but just lost when it comes to software-related patents or are corporations and litigators distorting the system?
- edanm 15y ago
  I think this highlights exactly what is wrong in so many discussions of IP. People get so caught up on the word "right" in "copyright", that they argue for hours on whether there is a right to intellectual property, whether stealing IP is the same as stealing actual physical goods, despite the fact that no one is deprived of something, etc. The truth is, that's all more-or-less off-topic. The reason we have copyright and a patent system is very simple: they're optimizations to make society better at producing more new stuff. The big question is, do they work? Another valid question is, even if society creates more new stuff under a patent system, is it worth it considering the other problems a patent system has?
  - Produce 15y ago
    > The reason we have copyright and a patent system is very simple: they're optimizations to make society better at producing more new stuff. Any optimization will sacrifice one thing for another. Perhaps a better approach would be to revisit our assumptions. Why do we assume that efficiency should trump freedom? Why do we assume that everyone will agree with the efficiency-is-king way of thinking? Why do we not consider the effects of our philosophy? We have smartphones and laptops now, but by forcing everyone to specialise they only gain happiness in the 'ignorance is bliss' understanding of it.
  - greyfade 15y ago
    > The reason we have copyright and a patent system is very simple: they're optimizations to make society better at producing more new stuff. The big question is, do they work? The simple answer is "no." There is no evidence that any patent or copyright monopoly has led to greater production of knowledge and culture. These laws are optimized for control, not for the expansion of knowledge.
angstrom 15y ago
It seemed to be a common thread among the founders that the unencumbered sharing of discoveries was a greater good. Patents serve as roadblocks creating a temporary dead end in the process of discovery. It's better to share and have everyone benefit from the fruits of innovation. Of course, most the founders were well off anyhow and patent trolls didn't exist yet, so the topic was a different matter at the time. http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/08/31/ben-franklin-on-patents/ http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/08/31/ben-franklin-on-patent...

by hristov 15y ago

SoftwareMaven 15y ago

And, really, that is probably the way it should be. Patents are out of control and not really providing benefit commensurate with their current cost.

dctoedt 15y ago

The Supreme Court has long relied, implicitly and even explicitly, on Jefferson's views about patents. The Court provided a nice recounting of the evolution of those views in Part II of its landmark opinion in Graham v. John Deere & Co.[1] That part of the Graham opinion is definitely worth reading for anyone who has to deal with the U.S. patent system. The Court observed that: --snip-- [Jefferson] rejected a natural rights theory in intellectual property rights and clearly recognized the social and economic rationale of the patent system. The patent monopoly was not designed to secure to the inventor his natural right in his discoveries. Rather, it was a reward, an inducement, to bring forth new knowledge. The grant of an exclusive right to an invention was the creation of society -- at odds with the inherent free nature of disclosed ideas -- and was not to be freely given. Only inventions and discoveries which furthered human knowledge, and were new and useful, justified the special inducement of a limited private monopoly. Jefferson did not believe in granting patents for small details, obvious improvements, or frivolous devices. His writings evidence his insistence upon a high level of patentability. --snip-- (Extra paragraphing added.) The Court noted that Jefferson clearly recognized the difficulty of "drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not." These Jeffersonian views have been part of the underpinnings of U.S. patent policy for decades. [1] 383 U.S. 1 (1966), available at http://supreme.justia.com/us/383/1/case.html http://supreme.justia.com/us/383/1/case.html

petegrif 15y ago
excellent summation
flocial 15y ago
That's interesting. Are we still following those precedents but just lost when it comes to software-related patents or are corporations and litigators distorting the system?
edanm 15y ago
I think this highlights exactly what is wrong in so many discussions of IP. People get so caught up on the word "right" in "copyright", that they argue for hours on whether there is a right to intellectual property, whether stealing IP is the same as stealing actual physical goods, despite the fact that no one is deprived of something, etc. The truth is, that's all more-or-less off-topic. The reason we have copyright and a patent system is very simple: they're optimizations to make society better at producing more new stuff. The big question is, do they work? Another valid question is, even if society creates more new stuff under a patent system, is it worth it considering the other problems a patent system has?
- Produce 15y ago
  > The reason we have copyright and a patent system is very simple: they're optimizations to make society better at producing more new stuff. Any optimization will sacrifice one thing for another. Perhaps a better approach would be to revisit our assumptions. Why do we assume that efficiency should trump freedom? Why do we assume that everyone will agree with the efficiency-is-king way of thinking? Why do we not consider the effects of our philosophy? We have smartphones and laptops now, but by forcing everyone to specialise they only gain happiness in the 'ignorance is bliss' understanding of it.
- greyfade 15y ago
  > The reason we have copyright and a patent system is very simple: they're optimizations to make society better at producing more new stuff. The big question is, do they work? The simple answer is "no." There is no evidence that any patent or copyright monopoly has led to greater production of knowledge and culture. These laws are optimized for control, not for the expansion of knowledge.

angstrom 15y ago

It seemed to be a common thread among the founders that the unencumbered sharing of discoveries was a greater good. Patents serve as roadblocks creating a temporary dead end in the process of discovery. It's better to share and have everyone benefit from the fruits of innovation. Of course, most the founders were well off anyhow and patent trolls didn't exist yet, so the topic was a different matter at the time. http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/08/31/ben-franklin-on-patents/ http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/08/31/ben-franklin-on-patent...