4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  You're missing that I'm trying to figure out how this actually works. Not saying how it should work. I'm not a sovereign citizen here, merely a confused citizen. > Can you point to anything to support that understanding of "secure"? I'm a regular person who is trying to interpret the law. I'm failing. This is probably because I'm getting too lost in thought. But the law should be clear enough that regular people can understand it without citation or legal knowledge. It should not be a specialized field except that specialists have broad facility in application. It's a definite improvement that modern laws abandoned parsimony for as precise as possible definition of terms. That's all. And the plain meaning of "secure" at the time was: "The sense of "get possession of, make oneself master of" is from 1743." https://www.etymonline.com/word/secure https://www.etymonline.com/word/secure With "no one can serve two masters" a biblical phrase that Jefferson would have been well familiar with. > 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. Exactly. I did eventually figure this out. I still think that it's a sophistic end-run around the plain text of the clause, unless said license includes a clawback provision that the author/inventor can unilaterally initiate. But I also believe that the founders knew about the Sophists, Shakespear's Merchant of Venice, and the like, as well as some of the arguments at the time over what to include in the Constitution. And that if they wrote ambiguity into Constitutional provisions, they likely did so on purpose. Definitional changes accounted for. Which puts me at odds with most jurisprudence.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    This conversation is becoming absurd. I do not understand how you read that definition of secure to mean that the master cannot sell their own shop. I’ve repeatedly asked you for your support on what is a very esoteric reading of the word secure, as opposed to the plain reading I keep providing to you. It’s one thing for you to speculate, but to insist that your forced reading is the plain one is a bit ridiculous IMO. I’m well aware that the law needs to be written clearly for plain understanding, it is. You are the one advancing a meaning that says by giving something to someone, they can’t also then sell it? That doesn’t mesh with the founder’s understandings of property rights at all or the definitions themselves. It’s a bit of a joke, and I guess you don’t realize it. But the point about academic references is that you are making an academic argument. You’d think that if your point was true, that it is SO OBVIOUSLY beyond the plain meaning of the word, SOMEONE else would have said something in the ensuing 200 years. Yet here we are, you telling me you know what the founders meant, despite all the evidence and common sense running against you. Okay buddy - good luck with that.

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.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
You're missing that I'm trying to figure out how this actually works. Not saying how it should work. I'm not a sovereign citizen here, merely a confused citizen. > Can you point to anything to support that understanding of "secure"? I'm a regular person who is trying to interpret the law. I'm failing. This is probably because I'm getting too lost in thought. But the law should be clear enough that regular people can understand it without citation or legal knowledge. It should not be a specialized field except that specialists have broad facility in application. It's a definite improvement that modern laws abandoned parsimony for as precise as possible definition of terms. That's all. And the plain meaning of "secure" at the time was: "The sense of "get possession of, make oneself master of" is from 1743." https://www.etymonline.com/word/secure https://www.etymonline.com/word/secure With "no one can serve two masters" a biblical phrase that Jefferson would have been well familiar with. > 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. Exactly. I did eventually figure this out. I still think that it's a sophistic end-run around the plain text of the clause, unless said license includes a clawback provision that the author/inventor can unilaterally initiate. But I also believe that the founders knew about the Sophists, Shakespear's Merchant of Venice, and the like, as well as some of the arguments at the time over what to include in the Constitution. And that if they wrote ambiguity into Constitutional provisions, they likely did so on purpose. Definitional changes accounted for. Which puts me at odds with most jurisprudence.
- freejazz 3y ago
  This conversation is becoming absurd. I do not understand how you read that definition of secure to mean that the master cannot sell their own shop. I’ve repeatedly asked you for your support on what is a very esoteric reading of the word secure, as opposed to the plain reading I keep providing to you. It’s one thing for you to speculate, but to insist that your forced reading is the plain one is a bit ridiculous IMO. I’m well aware that the law needs to be written clearly for plain understanding, it is. You are the one advancing a meaning that says by giving something to someone, they can’t also then sell it? That doesn’t mesh with the founder’s understandings of property rights at all or the definitions themselves. It’s a bit of a joke, and I guess you don’t realize it. But the point about academic references is that you are making an academic argument. You’d think that if your point was true, that it is SO OBVIOUSLY beyond the plain meaning of the word, SOMEONE else would have said something in the ensuing 200 years. Yet here we are, you telling me you know what the founders meant, despite all the evidence and common sense running against you. Okay buddy - good luck with that.