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
I have trouble letting a million people die because of patents.
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).
Congressman, I have to confess my ignorance up until now on this subject. Thanks for the fascinating post!
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).
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.
Excellent JOhn, very well done.
You got it down exactly. He's be outraged I'm sure.
The reality is: More than a million people will die in the next year when they needn't.
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.
"Oh you mean that "User-friendly" concept Jobs pirated from Xerox?"
Oh. I didn't realize Xerox made computers. Of course.
I always thought his greatest invention was the $100 bill. I've never seen one but I hear they're pretty cool.......
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.
This important concept has been completely eradicated by the legal establishment.
Thanks for posting this.
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?
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.
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.