[tsomer]

"Even though they never used the modern term “intellectual property,” that’s exactly what we’ve had — in effect — for the last 226 years since the US Constitution became operative. It doesn’t mean, of course, that every single aspect of patent, trademark and copyright law as enacted by the Congress and interpreted by the Courts is wise or beneficial.

Sorry for waiting so long for this reply; you make good points and I'm not opposed to some protection for artists and inventors.

I'm also not that familiar with the history of the development of that concept. But from my limited perspective this is what I see: originally monopolistic control over use and marketing of some technical innovation was extended to inventors who met criteria under examination by an expert. This was intended to encourage commercial expansion and technical innovation for the ultimate benefit of the entire country. Copyrights and trademark protections were similarly granted--I would argue-- more for the public benefit than for the individual who conceived it. I think that this reflects enlightenment thought (think Adam Smith,) not any utopian pre-marxist conception of the masses.

Also, remember that pure science, and art was largely the past time of the wealthy and admired as philanthropic activity.

Or so it seems to me.

When art and science became professions, it was reasonable to extend protections for publication and claims of authorship, but I don't think the original conceivers of these rules would have accepted the idea that ideas and conceptions could be claimed as property, or that patents and copyrights should ever benefit individual holders of those claims (who now very often are not the originators of the novelty) at the expense of future innovation or other fundamental rights.

That's putting the cart before the horse, and it is why I find "intellectual property" pernicious.

[Hawthorn]

>> I don’t think the original conceivers of these rules would have accepted the idea that ideas and conceptions could be claimed as property, or that patents and copyrights should ever benefit individual holders of those claims (who now very often are not the originators of the novelty) at the expense of future innovation or other fundamental rights. <<

Of course. That’s the exact reason why so many academics (lawyers and free-market economists) specialize in intellectual property questions. They wrestle with these issues every day. And they can be extremely critical not only of the laws passed by Congress, but also of the interpretations placed on those laws by the Courts. On the other hand, none but the Marxists, other extreme left wingers and anarchists say that we should never have something called “intellectual property.”