> The purpose of patents isn't to incentivize innovation. That's directly contrary to the text of the U.S. Constitution, article I, section 8, clause 8, which

> The purpose of patents isn't to incentivize innovation. That's directly contrary to the text of the U.S. Constitution, article I, section 8, clause 8, which gives Congress the power: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The Supreme Court's canonical explanation of patents' constitutional purpose was written by Justice Clark, for a unanimous Court, in Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 366 U.S. 1 (1966): [1] ==BEGIN QUOTE== ... The clause is both a grant of power and a limitation. This qualified authority, unlike the power often exercised in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by the English Crown, is limited to the promotion of advances in the "useful arts." It was written against the backdrop of the practices—eventually curtailed by the Statute of Monopolies—of the Crown in granting monopolies to court favorites in goods or businesses which had long before been enjoyed by the public. See Meinhardt, Inventions, Patents and Monopoly, pp. 30-35 (London, 1946). The Congress in the exercise of the patent power may not overreach the restraints imposed by the stated constitutional purpose. Nor may it enlarge the patent monopoly without regard to the innovation, advancement or social benefit gained thereby. Moreover, Congress may not authorize the issuance of patents whose effects are to remove existent knowledge from the public domain, or to restrict free access to materials already available. Innovation, advancement, and things which add to the sum of useful knowledge are inherent requisites in a patent system which by constitutional command must "promote the Progress of . . . useful Arts." This is the standard expressed in the Constitution and it may not be ignored. ... ==END QUOTE== Id. at 5-6 (emphasis in original, extra paragraphing added.) As 'wnoise correctly points out down-thread, protecting capital-intensive R&D from free riders is not an end in itself, but merely a means for achieving that end. [1] http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9105652591497305710 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9105652591497305.... The decision was 7-0; two justices (Stewart and Fortas) took no part, which usually means they recused themselves because of conflicts of interest such as personal business investments in one of the parties.