Indivisibility refers to the fact that an unlimited number of people can consume intellectual property, which differentiates it from tangible property. In the v

Indivisibility refers to the fact that an unlimited number of people can consume intellectual property, which differentiates it from tangible property. In the video, she uses multiple copied bicycles to illustrate the point. I think Jefferson was making a more nuanced point, namely that someone should not be given exclusive ownership of an idea in perpetuity, and specifically rails against the concept of inheritability of intellectual property. But he also carved out a caveat that “Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society” That falls right in line with what the constitution conveys. There is nothing contradictory between Jeffersons words and what ended up in the constitution as I read it. With all that said, again, it doesn’t necessarily matter what a single founding father thought. What matters is what they codified into law as a group, and if society has modified that law.