4 ms·

Destroying trade secrets may be a benefit of the patent system, but it's historically inaccurate to say that's why the system was created in the first place. T

by csallen 13y ago

Destroying trade secrets may be a benefit of the patent system, but it's historically inaccurate to say that's why the system was created in the first place. The Constitution itself gives the reason as "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". Numerous letters written by the Constitution's framers support the interpretation that the goal is to incentivize creation by granting monopolies.

jordigh 13y ago
It is not historically inaccurate, it's encoded in the name of the damn thing. The patent system predates the creation of the United States, and its spirit is more than the ambiguous summary of "to promote progress". The history of patents is long, but Queen Anne's statute is where the the nature of disclosing trade secrets was formalised: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis/p-history/p-history-18century.htm http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis/p-histor...
- csallen 13y ago
  I'm not saying that patents don't accomplish more than promoting progress. They do! I just believe your claim ("The whole point of patents is [to] increase society's knowledge of how to do things") is overly ambitious. That's an important part of the patent system, yes, but far from "the whole point". As Thomas Jefferson wrote about the US patent system: "Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility..."
peterashford 13y ago
Holy US-blinkers Batman! Patents existed for hundreds of years before the US even existed. Their framing in the US constitution does not describe the reasons for the creation of patents.
- csallen 13y ago
  This discussion is about the patent system in the United States.
  - peterashford 13y ago
    No, it isn't. The article was about abstract ideas in general and in this current thread, you were the first one to mention the constitution and it was to you and your point that I was replying.
    - csallen 13y ago
      The article appears in the New York Times, which is based in the US and targets a primarily American audience. Furthermore, the article itself begins: "The Constitution gives Congress the power to grant... But in recent years, the government has too often given patent protection to..."

by csallen 13y ago

jordigh 13y ago

It is not historically inaccurate, it's encoded in the name of the damn thing. The patent system predates the creation of the United States, and its spirit is more than the ambiguous summary of "to promote progress". The history of patents is long, but Queen Anne's statute is where the the nature of disclosing trade secrets was formalised: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis/p-history/p-history-18century.htm http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis/p-histor...

csallen 13y ago
I'm not saying that patents don't accomplish more than promoting progress. They do! I just believe your claim ("The whole point of patents is [to] increase society's knowledge of how to do things") is overly ambitious. That's an important part of the patent system, yes, but far from "the whole point". As Thomas Jefferson wrote about the US patent system: "Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility..."

peterashford 13y ago

Holy US-blinkers Batman! Patents existed for hundreds of years before the US even existed. Their framing in the US constitution does not describe the reasons for the creation of patents.

csallen 13y ago
This discussion is about the patent system in the United States.
- peterashford 13y ago
  No, it isn't. The article was about abstract ideas in general and in this current thread, you were the first one to mention the constitution and it was to you and your point that I was replying.
  - csallen 13y ago
    The article appears in the New York Times, which is based in the US and targets a primarily American audience. Furthermore, the article itself begins: "The Constitution gives Congress the power to grant... But in recent years, the government has too often given patent protection to..."