Add Madison's Fears Of Intellectual Property To Jefferson's
from the be-very,-very-careful dept
A bunch of folks have been pointing me to a series of posts at the Volokh Conspiracy blog concerning intellectual property. The one that kicked it off may be the most interesting. For a while, we've pointed people to Thomas Jefferson's views on "monopolies" and his overall reluctant feeling towards patents and copyrights. Many of Jefferson's feelings on this topic were made clear in letters between himself and James Madison. However, Madison is often credited with convincing Jefferson that patents were necessary when Jefferson was against the idea entirely. The post on Volokh, though, shows that Madison was, like Jefferson, very aware of the dangers of such monopolies and warned that it should only be used in the rarest of cases:But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good.You might want to remember this any time someone insists that the founding fathers were huge supporters of stronger and stronger intellectual property laws.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fears of IP
It's my understanding that "intellectual property" only begins to appear in the margins of legal thought in the mid-19C, and doesn't harden into a clear (well...?) legal concept until the mid-20C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
read US Constitution
Just read the US Constitution.
Call it whatever you want, but until the Constitution is amended inventors do have "exclusive rights" to their "discoveries" (exclusive = right to exlude others)
Petition the Congress to amend US Constitutuon or just shut up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: read US Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: read US Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: read US Constitution
2) My memory of constitutional history is that what (some of) the Founders wanted to prohibit was "special interests" in the form of political parties, but that never made it in to the final document.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: read US Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: read US Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: read US Constitution
My "where does it say that" question was directed at #6, Unknowledgeable Geek's claim that "[t]he constitution also prohibits special interest groups."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: read US Constitution
At what point did he call it unconstitutional?
At what point did petitioning congress become the only way to change a law?
FIRST, you'd want to make sure you educate the masses so that they follow you. THEN you petition Congress.
One man can't make a difference. But one man can create an army and change the world.
So, get off the school computer and go back to class. Your teacher is probably wondering why you've been gone so long with the bathroom pass. I'm pretty sure there's a time-limit on how long 6th graders can be gone. You don't want detention, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: read US Constitution
Always nice to hear from you angry dude.
Just read the US Constitution.
I have. You, on the other hand, seem to only be selectively reading it.
"Congress shall have power . . . 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."
This is not a universal "ok" for patents. It very clearly says that *for the purpose of promoting progress of science and useful arts*. In other words, if it's NOT promoting such progress, it's a problem. And that's true in this case.
The quotes from Madison and Jefferson -- who were the ones who debated and eventually crafted how this language would be presented -- clearly shows their intentions. It's folks like yourselves who pretend they meant something different.
Looking at what they said leading up to the creation of the constitution shows their specific fears -- and looking at what's happening today shows that those fears have been realized.
Folks like you who want to pretend the founding fathers meant something different than they did want to ignore the real purpose of the patent system. Reading what they wrote is important -- no matter how much you don't want to believe it's true.
Petition the Congress to amend US Constitutuon or just shut up
There's no need to change the constitution. It's quite clear that patents are only to serve the purpose of promoting progress and innovation. When it's not doing so, those patents are unconstitutional.
Btw, I've noticed that you never responded to my request to hear about your patent. You also never explained the disparity between claiming you had a patent years ago, and then claiming that you just got your first patent. It would be great if you responded to that, as it would help clarify your position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like what ?
Like the patentless clueless uncreative group of people who don't like patents and copyrights just because they are unable themselves to contribute to the "progress of arts and useful sciences" ?
yeah, that's a very large "special interest" group indeed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree with Chris though, the founding fathers could never comprehend what Intellectual Property rights would turn into in our day and age.
Would they agree with how the US has handled it? Probably not. And I am all for changing the constitution. I mean, that is how the founding fathers set it up years ago. The constitution needs to be amended as times change, not for us to have to bend over backward to conform to laws written hundreds of years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: angry dude
being as knowledgeable as you are, i'm sure you would have noticed that the government does cater to special interest groups.
i mean, someone of your intellect couldn't have missed it. so i can only assume you're being sarcastic because only an ignorant fool would have missed that completely.
But... I'm getting this strange feeling you're not being sarcastic... which leaves only one logical conclusion.
I'll let you come to that one on your own. I have some faith you'll arrive at the right answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: angry dude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wouldn't that then mean one man can make a difference. since without that one man the army wouldnt have formed, and if the army were one man short maybe it would have lost, and so in either case, one man is the difference. Maybe it is you that needs to go back to class... contradictions abound... get some class before you lecture others on going to it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
my god, there's a fine line between poking fun and being a complete tool. you've strayed a little too far over that line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
us contitution
at last another person who has read the constitution.
what i would like to know is where does everyone else has come up whith this strange notion that the english language has changed so much in the past 200 years that the words used in the constitution are no longer listed in any common dictionary and are therefore open to interpretation????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Benjamin Franklin's view
This further bolsters the concept that patents are for "for the purpose of promoting progress of science and useful arts." Patents are not for the purposes of creating a toll both and authorizing monopolist rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Benjamin Franklin's view
Here is an actual quote from Ben Franklin for you to read:
"Jealousy and Envy deny the merit or the novelty of your invention; but Vanity, when the novelty and merit are established, claims it for its own... One would not therefore, of all faculties, or qualities of the mind, wish for a friend, or a child, that he should have that of invention. For his attempts to benefit mankind in that way, however well imagined, if they do not succeed, expose him, though very unjustly, to general ridicule and contempt; and if they do succeed, to envy, robbery, and abuse."
-Ben Franklin, 1755
Or, in the modern formulation:
"When dealing with big companies there is no such thing as free lunch... unless you're the lunch"
Welcome to capitalism, pal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SCOTUS Spoke on this
"There's no need to change the constitution. It's quite clear that patents are only to serve the purpose of promoting progress and innovation. When it's not doing so, those patents are unconstitutional."
You are probably right on the first sentence above. The Supremes covered part of this when ruling on the Bono Copyright extentions awhile back (sorry- I don't have the exact dates or details). Basically they ruled for copyrights that the Constitution passed the baton to Congress in terms of length and rules and regulations. So probably, Congress is in charge of this per the courts.
In terms of your additional assertion that if a specific patent or group of patents is not doing its duty then those are "unconstitutional" it seems unlikely that you can pick and choose that way after the granting. It is possible you did not mean that sentence the way I read it.
And since many here love to call me an idiot (whatever my argument), I will do the honors myself- "I am an idiot." There, got that out of the way!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i'm not a douche
You've never created anything in your life.
...Th-th-this is why I'm so angry!
Oh, and I'm not a douche!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents and Founding Fathers
Interestingly, "intellectual property" is a euphemism for what amounts to the buying and selling of human freedom. By means of it, the public has lost its freedom to be self employed. Instead of, "Here's a better way; let me show you!," it's, "You can't do that, because I thought of it first, and under the law this is my chance to become rich. Think you'll need to go get a job now that I'm certain to get most of your customers, then you can work for me, but you'll have to sign right here that any good ideas that you have will also belong to me." There it is. Intellectual Property. Euphemism for modern forced servitude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]