The article (and much of the case so far) is talking about copyright, not patents. There was no need for an amendment, because patents & copyrights are in the

The article (and much of the case so far) is talking about copyright, not patents. There was no need for an amendment, because patents & copyrights are in the constitution itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause