4 ms·
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
by 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 agoexcellent summation
- flocial 15y agoThat'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 agoI 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.
- praxeologist 15y agoVote him down but it is true. See: http://blog.mises.org/10217/yet-another-study-finds-patents-do-not-encourage-innovation/ http://blog.mises.org/10217/yet-another-study-finds-patents-... yet somehow people keep repeating this.. He is also right that copyright came out of the desire to censor people. Patents are a relic from the time when state monopoly power was granted to many more things than just inventions.
- arecibodrake 15y agoI am surprised that neither of you have befallen downvotes as I had when I explained similar things.
- praxeologist 15y agoI'm a lot more negative now than before I posted. Sorry for pointing out the fact that no proof exists that patents encourage innovation. Keep believing fairy tales kids.