Yam gonna be rich!!
Posted on 04/24/2018 6:00:08 PM PDT by MarvinStinson
‘The English patent system evolved from its early medieval origins into the first modern patent system that recognised intellectual property in order to stimulate invention; this was the crucial legal foundation upon which the Industrial Revolution could emerge and flourish.
‘The Patent and Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution was proposed in 1787 by James Madison and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. In Federalist No. 43, Madison wrote, “The utility of the clause will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of the individuals.”
The first Patent Act of the U.S. Congress was passed on April 10, 1790, titled “An Act to promote the progress of useful Arts.” The first patent was granted on July 31, 1790 to Samuel Hopkins for a method of producing potash.’
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law
Very bad news for inventors. No one will file a patent since 1) it isn’t affording them any protection for their “private right” (a point a disagree with the court on) and 2) filing the patent provides public information to the competition.
Instead people will build in destructive fail safes so that any attempt to take apart and backward engineer will instead corrupt and destroy.
Patent rights have been around since the original blacksmiths. The whole reason the length of time was originally set (17 years I think) was that was the normal amount of time required for an apprentice to master the craft and any new techniques his master had developed.
No private right... pshaw
Thanks for all the info, Pelham.
I see this as a victory against patent trolls - companies that will buy the rights to large amounts of vague patents and then sue anybody who is able to make a vague idea in the original “patent” into reality.
No. It's vs. the wisdom of the market.
it’s a tough call. I’ll have to think about it.
Next time do that before you post.
Hamilton? Seriously?
No they won't. Go lookup "product strict liability".
I see from the thread that this is Hussein Obama’s handy work.
That’s happening defacto.
Even the devil can use truth against foolish men who won’t acknowledge it.
One major purpose of “letters patent” was vitiated long ago with the sheer volume of material — not to mention that people in the development sector are urged never to actually look at patents. The result is reinvention of the same thing dozens of times and few actually caring. Hence this new board’s almost universal determinations of obviousness — the facts empirically prove it out in a moribund system. Surely patents were never intended to be welfare for lawyers and courts.
But yet again, this board might not be looking at the best patents, the ones that are the most visionary. It might be looking mainly if not only at trash patents. If so, yes they deserve to die.
This one ought to be interesting in helping us understand Gorsuch's constitutional philosophy a bit more, as Gorsuch and Roberts dissented.
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GINSBURG and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined.
Because this used to be a Constitutional Republic, many of the old forms are still in place to placate the rubes.
Yeah. First Secretary of the Treasury. Played a very large role in designing America's financial system.
Perhaps you are as unfamiliar with Hamilton as you are with the Constitution's protection of patents and copyrights:
“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.”
Joe Sobran or Sam Francis used to say something along the lines of “we have a Constitution but the gov’t never lets it get in the way of doing what they want”
“Correct. patents are not property and they never have been.”
Well no one can ever accuse you of knowing the first thing about the long history of patents as property rights:
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/09/07/patents-property-rights-history-lesson/id=87644/
Yam gonna be rich!!
The term "intellectual property" only came into fashion in the late 19th century. Before that, patents were simply known as monopolies. Every reference in the article you posted is from that period or later, except one reference from the evil John Marshall. Patents, as we know them, were established first by the English Statute of Monopolies in 1624. The reference in the US Constitution is just an incorporation of that legal doctrine.
And a deeply evil man because of it.
Perhaps you are as unfamiliar with Hamilton as you are with the Constitution's protection of patents and copyrights:
I doubt you even know the difference between a patent and a copyright. You clearly don't understand that they are both just government created monopolies.
And you haven't answered my question. Why, if patents are property, do patents expire?
Bttt
It should be congresses priority to correct this.
Not much incentive to invent things if some administrative court can facilitate the theft of your intellectual property.
"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way for you to go through life"- Dean Wormer
"And you haven't answered my question. Why, if patents are property, do patents expire?"
Because patents aren't charters.
Those with knowledge of the history of patents, (quite evidently "not you"), know that in medieval Europe where the concepts developed, that there was a distinction between "charters" which were perennial rights and "patents" which were rights of finite duration.
Since we have finite rights to our inventions we deal in patents and not charters. If we had an office granting perpetual rights to inventions then it would be "The US Charter and Trademark Office" rather than the USPTO.
The patent term of 20 years, like patents themselves,derives from medieval practice and mirrors the expected working career of a craftsman in the medieval guilds. The first recorded modern patent for an invention was a barge fitted with a hoist for moving marble slabs. Florence, 1421.
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.