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
Thanks for the post.
You’re welcome. I take little I find on the internet (or on the news shows, or in the newspapers) at face value.
Great USPTO story but that graphic doesn't fit the story....I don't think there is a patent on the Democratic Party....
I wrote a small piece for a local blog about Democracy in it I addressed the issue of old Ben coming back to present day America. The Following is an excerpt:
__________________________________________________________
Dr. Franklin was a genius, for that there is no doubt. He was a great force in the founding of our country and is responsible for many of the things we take for granted today. He had another saying that I doubt many in America would know or recognize. “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”Yes Franklin had it down. Today, more and more money is sent to Washington D.C. in the name of social programs and the cry of the left is we need even more money to get the job done.
I sometimes wish I could go back in time and bring Dr. Franklin into the present so he could address the federal government in a Joint Session of Congress. Oh man, now that would be entertainment!
I can see it all now. All of the major networks and cable news anchors, the New York Times and all the rest of the birdcage liners all gathered together to cover this momentous occasion. A hush would come over the gathered heads of state and the members of our government as the lights dim. A single spotlight would illuminate Dr. Franklin as he put on his famous bifocals and acknowledge the gathered dignitaries:
”Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, the esteemed members of the Supreme Court, distinguished members of the House and the Senate, and the citizens of this great nation I bid you all greetings.”
“I’ve journeyed here today across the expanse time some 216 years ago at the very conclusion of the writing of the Constitution to this present day to put forth a very important question to you all…”
“What in God’s good name do you think you people are doing?!?!?!?!”
Oh you mean that "User-friendly" concept Jobs pirated from Xerox?
No, but I am suggesting that the people who believe they have a right to infringe the drug manufacturers patent so that they can manufacture the drugs and give them away might have a socialistic agenda. Coercing or blackmailing the manufacturer into donating or discounting the drugs is basically no different. It is not the manufacturer with the patent who should bear the burden for the cost of medication for the people who cannot afford it for themselves.
There is plenty of room for charity, but socialized health care or socialized medicines whether by government decree or public coercion is a step toward the dark ages, not the provision of health care to anybody.
Thank you for posting this.
Didn't it work exactly that way for Polio and smallpox? I thought that was a rather enlightened approach to stem human suffering in the history of the world.
I understand the point you intended to make, but Pink Floyd isn't the best example.
To this day, (if they were so inclined), they could perform live and sell out stadiums at $100+ / ticket.
Albums can make you popular, but touring makes you rich.
And after you discover hundreds of John Smiths who died between 1980 and 2030 and many more who are still alive, what then?
If something can't be proven to be in the public domain, it may as well not be. Unless something is done, the various copyright reforms will mean that a great volume of material will for all practical purposes never enter the public domain even if copies survive long enough to do so.
To be sure, being unable to track down copyright holders is also a problem, but back in the days when notice was required, and when registration was required for renewal, anyone who couldn't track down a copyright holder could wait 28 years from the printed copyright date; if the work wasn't registered by then, it was in the public domain (and thus available for use). By contrast, the problems with today's system mean that a work whose author/owner can't be found will be unusable forever (since without knowing who the author is, there will be no way of knowing when the work lapses into the public domain). If there are no further rule changes, a work published in 1980 could enter the public domain as early as 2051, or could still be under copyright in 2150.
Government is the least efficient, the least effective, and the worst possible way to do anything. Capitalism works; socialism fails every time it is tried and it will always fail every time it is tried because the incentives are backwards.
I have seen military medicine, VA medicine, and British Medicine up close. Do you think it was an accident that Fedex and UPS are not part of the post office?
Is that true of the world effort? Did the donations of America eradicate smallpox and Polio? Were the cures patented? Should cures be patentable?
I'd be interested in a Franklin answer to today's problems, is the point.
I sure do. Whenver I think about Franklin and the other founders, I am once again reminded of who the TRUE greatest generation is in American history. Although it helped Brokaw sell a lot of books, I rue the day he or his publishers ever came up with that title for the WWII generation.
Without the founding generation, there would have been no American WWII generation to save Europe in the 1940's.
Yeah, touring can make you rich, but Pink Floyd went through the time and expense of their groundbreaking production and having it sound perfect on the album because the album was an end in itself, not a means to an end. If Pink Floyd knew it would have only sold a handful of albums and would need to make its living from touring, it would have made an album with less production and more of a "live" sound.
Yes. I have an agenda. I have trouble letting a million people die because of patents.
At some future point, there may be an Iranian cure for some virus that is killing millions of Americans. Suppose their price was 1/2 trillion dollars and all of Montana for licensing rights. Would we pay it? Would we respect their patent?
Some replies to me have indicated that we can be selective about who to save based on their politics and policies. I disagree, is all. I think humanity has some common enemies that transcend both the law and money.
And after you discover hundreds of John Smiths who died between 1980 and 2030 and many more who are still alive, what then?
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.