4 ms·

They control the license according to the terms of a license. But once a patent is sold the author of it no longer has any right to it. Authors and inventors a

They control the license according to the terms of a license. But once a patent is sold the author of it no longer has any right to it. Authors and inventors are mentioned with the same language in the clause. Since it has always been true that authors can basically only profit from their writings by selling copies or originals of their works (without selling the right to the copyrighted material itself) then some form of licensing is necessarily included in the clause for both copyright and patents. There may have been journalists at the time who wrote works for newspapers owned by others. If so, this would be a reason to include the right of selling all of the rights to one's writings or inventions in the clause. I genuinely don't know if this was the case though.

freejazz 3y ago
Authors can license all of their rights away. They can sell their copyrights - I don't see your point...
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  I'm asking whether the laws which allow this are within scope of the US Constitution's clause on intellectual property rights. There are plenty of laws which have been ruled unconstitutional. But it takes someone making the complaint to a court for this to happen. Otherwise the legislature does whatever it wants. Currently a majority of the US Supreme court thinks that the status quo at the time of the writing of the US Constitution or its amendments has bearing as to the meaning of those texts. Thus I mentioned back then authors sold copies of their works while retaining all other rights as indicating that "licensing" is within this clause. Whether or not total sales of the rights to the work is within the purview of the clause is another question that I'm curious about.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    > I'm asking whether the laws which allow this are within scope of the US Constitution's clause on intellectual property rights. Which laws are those? I'm not sure why it wouldn't be in the scope of the constitutional grant of authority to congress. "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" The use of exclusive here makes perfect sense with how things worked then, and today. I think you are getting caught up in non-existent semantics. What would be the purpose of the clause if authors/inventors couldn't sell their work? what would be secured in the exclusive rights that benefits the furthering of arts and science if inventors and authors couldn't exploit their exclusive rights? I'm a copyright and patent litigator and I've never heard anyone make the argument you are making.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      > What would be the purpose of the clause if authors/inventors couldn't sell their work? Not that they can't sell their work, but that they can transfer their exclusive rights in such a manner that they themselves can no longer exercise those rights. And laws which allow this are obviously, by definition of the words at the time, not "securing" those rights to the authors and inventors. You can't secure something to someone by allowing them to (both post-hoc and especially pre-hoc) permanently transfer those rights. Especially the pre-hoc transmission of rights as seen in various contracts (work for hire, etcetera) completely flouts the "securing" basis of the constitutional IP clause in that under no circumstances whatsoever did the rights ever belong to the author/inventor. The Constitution did not grant congress the authority to make laws allowing intellectual property protections to a pre-hoc transfer, but only possibly to transfer in which the author/inventor first had exclusive rights. Therefore any contracts which automatically assign any rights to any creations to another party the moment those creations are created cannot be covered by intellectual property protection laws created pursuant to Article 1, section 8, clause 8 powers, but must have some other constitutional basis (possibly under the commerce clause?). I guess you could get around this argument fairly easily by saying that the "limited time" is X number of years or until sold. But then I still don't understand under what authority the purchasing party gets these IP rights, as they are not the author or inventor, and thus not entitled to any securing of rights under this clause. If they do have rights it must be under either common law which pre-existed 1789, or under another section and clause of the Constitution, since this is not a 9th or 10th amendment issue. Congress can't just make law willy-nilly however it wants to, but must do so under one of its enumerated powers. I guess another way around this, and possibly the way it is done in IP law (you would know better than I), is that these rights aren't literally sold to another, but instead a permanent licensing contract is signed in which the author/inventor grants use of their exclusive rights to the licensee to do with however they wish. In this way the "exclusive rights" would still be secured to the author/inventor, though exercised by the other party. This seems like sophistry, but much of the law is.
      - freejazz 3y ago
        >And laws which allow this are obviously, by definition of the words at the time, not "securing" those rights to the authors and inventors. You can't secure something to someone by allowing them to (both post-hoc and especially pre-hoc) permanently transfer those rights. I don't follow that those words are the "laws" you are talking about. The security of the right is the intellectual property. The patent secures the space the invention covers. The copyright secures the space the novel expression covers. Your interpretation of "secure" is completely specious and has no basis in law. Can you point to anything to support that understanding of "secure"? It seems like you are doing the opposite than what you claim to be. Rather than reading "secure" as they meant it at the time, you are reading a new definition of "secure" based upon how you feel IP should be resolved today. This is all besides that if an owner can license, then transferring the IP itself is trivial, as one can grant a license that covers all aspects of the exclusive rights. I find it a bit ridiculous that you write "ways around this" as if your argument has any actual basis in law. It doesn't, and it seems like you have no experience in licensing IP rights. While that's not necessary to have an opinion, it certainly has not left you with an understanding of how things work such that you could base a reasonable opinion off of that.

freejazz 3y ago

Authors can license all of their rights away. They can sell their copyrights - I don't see your point...

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
I'm asking whether the laws which allow this are within scope of the US Constitution's clause on intellectual property rights. There are plenty of laws which have been ruled unconstitutional. But it takes someone making the complaint to a court for this to happen. Otherwise the legislature does whatever it wants. Currently a majority of the US Supreme court thinks that the status quo at the time of the writing of the US Constitution or its amendments has bearing as to the meaning of those texts. Thus I mentioned back then authors sold copies of their works while retaining all other rights as indicating that "licensing" is within this clause. Whether or not total sales of the rights to the work is within the purview of the clause is another question that I'm curious about.
- freejazz 3y ago
  > I'm asking whether the laws which allow this are within scope of the US Constitution's clause on intellectual property rights. Which laws are those? I'm not sure why it wouldn't be in the scope of the constitutional grant of authority to congress. "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" The use of exclusive here makes perfect sense with how things worked then, and today. I think you are getting caught up in non-existent semantics. What would be the purpose of the clause if authors/inventors couldn't sell their work? what would be secured in the exclusive rights that benefits the furthering of arts and science if inventors and authors couldn't exploit their exclusive rights? I'm a copyright and patent litigator and I've never heard anyone make the argument you are making.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    > What would be the purpose of the clause if authors/inventors couldn't sell their work? Not that they can't sell their work, but that they can transfer their exclusive rights in such a manner that they themselves can no longer exercise those rights. And laws which allow this are obviously, by definition of the words at the time, not "securing" those rights to the authors and inventors. You can't secure something to someone by allowing them to (both post-hoc and especially pre-hoc) permanently transfer those rights. Especially the pre-hoc transmission of rights as seen in various contracts (work for hire, etcetera) completely flouts the "securing" basis of the constitutional IP clause in that under no circumstances whatsoever did the rights ever belong to the author/inventor. The Constitution did not grant congress the authority to make laws allowing intellectual property protections to a pre-hoc transfer, but only possibly to transfer in which the author/inventor first had exclusive rights. Therefore any contracts which automatically assign any rights to any creations to another party the moment those creations are created cannot be covered by intellectual property protection laws created pursuant to Article 1, section 8, clause 8 powers, but must have some other constitutional basis (possibly under the commerce clause?). I guess you could get around this argument fairly easily by saying that the "limited time" is X number of years or until sold. But then I still don't understand under what authority the purchasing party gets these IP rights, as they are not the author or inventor, and thus not entitled to any securing of rights under this clause. If they do have rights it must be under either common law which pre-existed 1789, or under another section and clause of the Constitution, since this is not a 9th or 10th amendment issue. Congress can't just make law willy-nilly however it wants to, but must do so under one of its enumerated powers. I guess another way around this, and possibly the way it is done in IP law (you would know better than I), is that these rights aren't literally sold to another, but instead a permanent licensing contract is signed in which the author/inventor grants use of their exclusive rights to the licensee to do with however they wish. In this way the "exclusive rights" would still be secured to the author/inventor, though exercised by the other party. This seems like sophistry, but much of the law is.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      >And laws which allow this are obviously, by definition of the words at the time, not "securing" those rights to the authors and inventors. You can't secure something to someone by allowing them to (both post-hoc and especially pre-hoc) permanently transfer those rights. I don't follow that those words are the "laws" you are talking about. The security of the right is the intellectual property. The patent secures the space the invention covers. The copyright secures the space the novel expression covers. Your interpretation of "secure" is completely specious and has no basis in law. Can you point to anything to support that understanding of "secure"? It seems like you are doing the opposite than what you claim to be. Rather than reading "secure" as they meant it at the time, you are reading a new definition of "secure" based upon how you feel IP should be resolved today. This is all besides that if an owner can license, then transferring the IP itself is trivial, as one can grant a license that covers all aspects of the exclusive rights. I find it a bit ridiculous that you write "ways around this" as if your argument has any actual basis in law. It doesn't, and it seems like you have no experience in licensing IP rights. While that's not necessary to have an opinion, it certainly has not left you with an understanding of how things work such that you could base a reasonable opinion off of that.