3 ms·
Many of the same people who wrote and ratified the constitution (1787-1789) also then wrote and ratified the Patent Act of 1790, which (just like earlier Englis
by gojomo 13y ago
Many of the same people who wrote and ratified the constitution (1787-1789) also then wrote and ratified the Patent Act of 1790, which (just like earlier English law) included disclosure requirements.
I trust them on what they meant by "promote the progress", over your idiosyncratic interpretation from 225 years later. Especially since even today "progress" is understood to be advanced by widespread-knowledge, not just first-knowledge.
- guelo 13y agoYou can't grant a monopoly on an invention without describing the invention. You need something for judges to decide if there is infringement. Disclosure is just a side effect of how patents work, it's not the purpose. The idea is to promote science by granting exclusive rights, as it says in the constitution. Not to promote science by publishing vague legalistic descriptions of inventions. Inventors do not go rummaging through patent documents for ideas.
- bitJericho 13y agoPatent descriptions didn't used to be vague. That's a relatively new technique in avoiding the disclosure requirements legally. Look at the Wright Brother's patent: http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Wrights/WrightUSPatent/WrightPatent.html http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Wrights/WrightUSPa... The document makes perfect sense. Just randomly pick a point and start reading and you learn what they had researched and discovered.
- lotsofmangos 13y agoPatents were already a legal device long before European pilgrims settled Jamestown. The original reasons behind patents existing, assuming the non-existence of time machines, has nothing whatsoever to do with the constitution of the USA.