Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ben Franklin’s Greatest Invention
Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 9 Nov., 2005 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

Posted on 12/08/2005 11:07:42 PM PST by Congressman Billybob

Even today, sources on inventions list six by Franklin that are still in active use today. One of those sits in my back hall, cheerfully and economically heating the back of my home – the Franklin stove. Another sits on the bridge of my nose as I write this – a pair of bifocals. But this is about Franklin’s greatest invention, one that the lists never mention because it is mere words, not a physical object.

Franklin made seven trips to Europe, as a diplomat and scholar. He was welcomed into all the learned societies that existed in Europe then. One of the things he learned on those trips was that creative people were being cheated out of the financial benefits of their creations. When the novels of Charles Dickens became popular, printers other than his own simply reset the type and republished the books, without a cent in royalties to the author. When Thomas Paine’s design for a cast iron bridge became known (and remained the standard until the advent of the use of steel in the 20th century), others copied the design without a cent in royalties being paid.

Thomas Jefferson was undoubtedly the nation’s greatest political philosopher, in a group where the competition for that accolade was very high. But Franklin was the nation’s greatest practical philosopher. He recognized that the building of a nation required the creation of a form of fastest possible communication among its parts. So he created the first Post Office, and also served as the first Postmaster. Were Franklin to return, he would recognize in a trice how the Internet works and why it is important. On his second day back, he would have a blog entitled “Poor Richard’s Almanack.”

But even the Post Office, which led inexorably to the Internet, was not Franklin’s greatest invention. He thought about the problem of creative people being encouraged to develop new creations. He understood the importance of good, old-fashioned financial incentives. He suggested to James Madison the following 27-word clause to be added to the powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8. With little debate and no objection, since it came from the respected scientist, it was added to the Constitution:

“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;....”

What is the importance of that clause? The US is only a small fraction of the world’s population. There are other, highly developed nations, with their own great universities. Still, more than three-fourths of all the world’s patents, copyrights, and trademarks are issued annually to Americans.

Is it because Americans are a special breed of human beings, better able to understand complexities and see the shape of the future? Comparisons of American students with their counterparts at all ages in other developed nations should quickly dispel that notion.

No, it is Franklin’s invention of this clause that has caused the explosion of American creativity, which began with the founding of the nation, and has shown no signs of slowing down in the two and a quarter centuries since. By giving a temporary monopoly to inventors like Thomas Edison and Bill Gates, it unleashed their abilities to redirect economic history. It unleashed the abilities of writers and creators like Mark Twain and Steven Spielberg to redirect literary and cinematic history.

(And one of the great diplomatic challenges of our times is to get certain nations to stop stealing the results of that creativity, by stealing the developments and reproducing them – exactly the way everyone was stealing all inventors’ works, when Franklin toured the learned societies of Europe, three centuries ago.)

Where did Franklin get the idea for this powerful clause, the one that is the engine behind the economic miracle of the United States of America? Every other clause in the Constitution has its progenitors in the works of Baron Montesquieu, John Locke, and other political and historical writers known to the Framers of the Constitution. This clause, and this one alone, has no ancestor.

Franklin saw the problem as it existed in the rest of the world. Franklin recognized that providing an economic incentive would encourage inventors and creators. And he also recognized that it must be temporary, “for limited times,” since he was aware of permanent monopolies such as the salt monopoly in the Ottoman empire, which were benefits for preferred supporters of the ruler.

In short, Franklin’s invention of this clause led to the current status of the American economy as the most powerful economic engine in history. And that is no small achievement.

About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Free Republic; Government; News/Current Events; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: baronmontesquieu; benfranklin; benfrankllin; benjaminfranklin; bifocals; billgates; charlesdickens; copyrights; founders; franklinstove; invention; jamesmadison; johnlocke; marktwain; ottomanempire; patents; postoffice; stevenspielberg; thomasedison; thomasjefferson; thomaspaine; trademarks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-130 next last
To: Glenn

I have trouble letting a million people die because of patents.



When you consider the, say, 10 million who are saved because of the motivational effect of patents on medical advances, I'd call the patent system a real life saver.

And if the Iranians want to advance medicine, and sell their results for what the market will bear, it would be a far better world. Let the free market bring freedom to the rest of the world.


101 posted on 12/09/2005 4:27:40 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
Invent whatever you choose. Give it to anyone you choose, on any terms you decide. In the meantime, reflect on the fact that roughly 90% of drugs that have lengthened the lives of millions of people around the world have been developed under our present, Franklin-inspired patents system.

Or, would you rather have those millions of lives depend on the cutting edge drugs that have been developed in the socialist and communist nations of the world? I hear they have developed penicillin just about now.

The best health is in the West, which has organized medical research on American lines. The worst health is in the rest of the world, where the research is organized on the lines you apparently prefer. Although you claim to be in favor of good health and long life, the geopolitical reality is that you favor the opposite, ill health and short life.

John / Billybob
102 posted on 12/09/2005 4:28:08 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (Do you think Fitzpatrick resembled Captain Queeg, coming apart on the witness stand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Look for the one who wrote the book you want to copy.

Depending upon the profile of the work in question, that may be difficult or impossible. If the work in question was famous and gets mentioned in the author's obituary, things will be simple. But if it's a small vanity-published item that never achieved much notice, there may be no trace of it anywhere.

BTW, another thing I was curious about: suppose someone buys some positive reversal movie film (camera original) at an estate sale. Would the purchase of the film constitute purchase of the full rights thereunto? What about manuscripts, photographs, computer media, or other such materials? (I mentioned movie film first, btw, because it is the type of media most likely to be a one-of-a-kind item).

103 posted on 12/09/2005 4:29:48 PM PST by supercat (Sony delinda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Congressman, I have to confess my ignorance up until now on this subject. Thanks for the fascinating post!


104 posted on 12/09/2005 4:31:18 PM PST by gitmo (From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat

BTW, another thing I was curious about: suppose someone buys some positive reversal movie film (camera original) at an estate sale. Would the purchase of the film constitute purchase of the full rights thereunto? What about manuscripts, photographs, computer media, or other such materials? (I mentioned movie film first, btw, because it is the type of media most likely to be a one-of-a-kind item).



Ownership of a copy (positive or negative) grants no right to make copies of it or from it, or to sell anything other than the item. The utility of an item for making copies does not come into play. Even if the item has no other use.


105 posted on 12/09/2005 5:14:59 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Ownership of a copy (positive or negative) grants no right to make copies of it or from it, or to sell anything other than the item. The utility of an item for making copies does not come into play. Even if the item has no other use.

If I purchase a camera positive home movie, odds are pretty good that film is a one-of-a-kind item. It isn't a copy--it's the original film that was put through the camera. As for copyright, unless there is specific mention of the film in a will, I can't really see how copyright authority would be assigned to any particular heir. Further, it would seem that anyone who sells all existing copies of a work demonstrates a willingness to forfeit any and all future income therefrom.

Especially in cases that span generations (e.g. someone sells a bunch of stuff that they had inherited from an ancestor or relative) it would seem that the concept of 'copyright ownership' can become so vague as to be basically meaningless.

106 posted on 12/09/2005 7:21:57 PM PST by supercat (Sony delinda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Excellent JOhn, very well done.


107 posted on 12/09/2005 8:10:07 PM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat
>If I purchase a camera positive home movie, odds are pretty good that film is a one-of-a-kind item.

Which is irrelevant to copyright.

>As for copyright, unless there is specific mention of the film in a will, I can't really see how copyright authority would be assigned to any particular heir.

Wills generally have remainder/residue interests.

>...it would seem that the concept of 'copyright ownership' can become so vague as to be basically meaningless.

That is a tempting position for the infringer, of course. Of course, in many instances, there is little to worry or feel bad about copying something in practical terms.

What is it you wish to do?
108 posted on 12/09/2005 8:35:37 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

You got it down exactly. He's be outraged I'm sure.


109 posted on 12/09/2005 8:59:07 PM PST by Cougar66 (If I had ever wanted a woman to be President, I'd have voted for John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Although you claim to be in favor of good health and long life, the geopolitical reality is that you favor the opposite, ill health and short life.

The reality is: More than a million people will die in the next year when they needn't.

110 posted on 12/10/2005 3:32:28 AM PST by Glenn (What I've dared, I've willed; and what I've willed, I'll do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Glenn; Congressman Billybob

Maybe we should pass a law requiring all doctors and hospitals to work for minimum wage-- that would make health care much more accessible and save many lives too, wouldn't it? Better yet, make 'em work for nothing.

The doctors would still all be more than willing to spend seven years plus training out of the goodness of their hearts, wouldn't they?

You want to have all the benefits that are created by the current system, at no cost. Typical looter thinking.


111 posted on 12/10/2005 3:39:43 AM PST by RobFromGa (Polls are for people who can't think for themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

"Oh you mean that "User-friendly" concept Jobs pirated from Xerox?"

Oh. I didn't realize Xerox made computers. Of course.


112 posted on 12/10/2005 3:49:40 AM PST by RoadTest (As teens we know everything; by 90, if we're wise, we'll know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Ben Franklin’s Greatest Invention

I always thought his greatest invention was the $100 bill. I've never seen one but I hear they're pretty cool.......

113 posted on 12/10/2005 3:50:51 AM PST by Hot Tabasco (It must suck being an Islamofascist....... they don't get Christmas presents.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest
"Oh. I didn't realize Xerox made computers. Of course."

A development team at XEROX came up with the user friendly/GUI concept and Jobs and his Apple team were brought in to look at it.

And the rest is history.

114 posted on 12/10/2005 6:35:00 AM PST by Mad Dawgg ("`Eddies,' said Ford, `in the space-time continuum.' `Ah,' nodded Arthur, `is he? Is he?'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
And he also recognized that it must be temporary, “for limited times,” since he was aware of permanent monopolies such as the salt monopoly in the Ottoman empire, which were benefits for preferred supporters of the ruler.

This important concept has been completely eradicated by the legal establishment.

115 posted on 12/10/2005 6:43:25 AM PST by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decal

116 posted on 12/10/2005 7:03:20 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
I emailed a link to this thread to my stepson, who is studying history in college.

Thanks for posting this.

117 posted on 12/10/2005 7:18:58 AM PST by genew (Fact: Political correctness is a deadly social disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
Protecting the writings of David Baldacci is "morality" with a little 'm'. Saving the lives of millions is "morality" with a giant 'M'.

Oddly, when I was in college, this situation came up.

We debated it back and forth.

My opinion was simple, if I am the CEO of a company, and a nation reject or strips my patent for drugs or cancer or what not.

I'll have to chalk it up as a lesson learned, and realize that its foolish to ever do any kind of work in those fields again i.e. freeze all cancer and aids research immediatly and invest in something else.

What was scary, is that my idea isn't original, and alot of executives in pharmacutucal industry are starting to lean towards investment in medical technology.

The question then asked, is how many more millions will now be affected or die as a result of those decisions?

118 posted on 12/10/2005 11:01:08 AM PST by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Every thing about Franklin is enterprising and interestiong
119 posted on 12/10/2005 4:27:39 PM PST by MilspecRob (Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
The question then asked, is how many more millions will now be affected or die as a result of those decisions?

It's a valid question. I suggested in my initial post that turning loose a man like Franklin on such a dilemma would be interesting.

To even consider debating the question makes me a socialist, some suggest.

120 posted on 12/10/2005 4:52:16 PM PST by Glenn (What I've dared, I've willed; and what I've willed, I'll do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-130 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson