Tags: Article I , Article I Section 8 Clause 8 , constitution , copyright , copyright clause , copyrights , federalist paper no. Read more. In Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, the word Right is capitalized.
Words in the Constitution are capitalized for a reason. It is the only place in the Constitution where the word Right is used and that means it is actually a Right just like Free Speech, Religion, etc.
The courts, Congress and the Administration have it completely backwards. They consider that Right to be granted by the government, not the other way around. If it is granted by the government, the government can take it away. But that is not how it works and nor how it should work. The People granted Congress power to protect our Rights in the Constitution. Our Rights exist even without the government.
Rights are granted by God and hang atop of the government. Which means that the government has no power to grant any Rights… the only power the government has is to protect our Rights. Therefore a patent is a government document used to protect a Right to an invention that already exists as a Right even without the government.
In other words, your words are not correct, and the legal meaning is a bit more nuanced. If you do so, then you may find yourself more able to deal with the feelings that undergird your comment. The importance is without question. Parties that question if a patent system is even needed today should leave the country. It is part of the genius design of the Constitution.
Patents are a right and the Constitutional promise for them has not been fulfilled. Artists and Inventors are both cited in the Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 , but equal treatment between the two has not been ushered. Patent law is struggling with an arcane system that does a very poor job of making the court system accessible to average inventors.
When a patented product is blatantly knocked off aka, copied , all bets are off that the inventor will ever get justice. Micky Mouse Disney has been the most successful political lobbyist ever! I say not, it is time for a paradigm shift in improving the inventors protections and we should pursue more and more constitutional arguments. The modern system does not fulfill the constitutional promise for Inventors while it does for Authors, and if it does for both then why such a stark comparison?
There are Disney and Hollywood pushing for stronger copyright laws and there are googles apples and amazons pushing for unenforceable US patents Constitution?? Teach it to scotus and congress critters cause they are the ones who care the least. Really great job Gene. It is so important that people have time to spend to counteract people like Mark Lemley, who Stanford pays to burn down the patent system.
View More…. Advertise Here. Our website uses cookies to provide you with a better experience. Read our privacy policy for more information. Without protection, American authors found it difficult to prosper, and few American popular works were published.
Beginning in the s, a group of American authors banded together to lobby state legislatures for copyright protection. Perhaps the most well known--and forceful--member of the group was Noah Webster, who later created Webster's Dictionary. In , Webster was revising a book called the American Speller. It was the first of a three volume text titled The Grammatical Institute. In and Webster sent petitions to the legislatures of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, and New York requesting general copyright laws and also private protection for his book.
Other authors were submitting similar petitions. The authors also pressed the Continental Congress for support. In March , the Congress appointed a committee of three including James Madison to consider the question of protecting literary property. Within a month, the committee submitted its report.
Having concluded that protecting literary property "would greatly tend to encourage genius, to promote useful discoveries and to the general extension of arts and commerce," the committee recommended that Congress pass a resolution encouraging the states to enact copyright laws. The resolution passed on May 2, The resolution, and the continued lobbying by Webster and other authors, had an immediate effect.
Webster personally traveled to almost every colony, and in one instance, made a personal visit to General Washington at Mount Vernon, asking for help in convincing the Virginia legislature to pass copyright legislation. By the end of , eight states had adopted general copyright laws. By the end of all of the 13 states except Delaware had passed general copyright laws.
Most of the laws, like the law passed in South Carolina, provided copyright protection for 14 years and significant penalties for infringement. But the Continental Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, had no power to pass national legislation. The Constitutional Convention convened in May to amend the Articles of Confederation and create a new, and stronger, national government.
Four months later, on September 17, , the new U. Constitution was signed. Article I, Section 8, listed the powers granted to Congress. It included the power to protect both literary and inventive property:.
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.
The last clause of Article I, Section 8, specifically granted Congress the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the Foregoing powers.
The convention's journals do not record any debate over the intellectual property clause. Most of the clause's language already appeared in state copyright laws including the South Carolina law that linked copyrights rights and patents. Many members of the convention had served in state legislatures when copyright laws were adopted and patent applications were approved. The intellectual property clause was unanimously approved and passed without debate.
This suggests that the lawmakers who drafted the Constitution knew about the weakness of the state system that required inventors and writers to make multiple applications. Most had been lobbied by Webster and other authors. As one scholar has noted, "When the Constitutional Convention met, the ground had been well prepared. When the first Congress convened on March 4, , it formed a committee to draft a law under its constitutional power to protect intellectual property.
The first bill was tabled until the next session. In the meantime, applications for patent and copyright protection began pouring in. Many of the patent applications were for steam engines and other new machines. One was for "an infallible cure for the bite of a mad dog. I believe, he said, "that you will agree with me in opinion, that there is nothing which can better deserve your patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Congress chose to pass two separate bills, rather than a single bill for patents and copyrights.
The patent law, effective April 10, , granted to the patent owner "the sole and exclusive right and liberty" to make and sell his invention for a term not to exceed 14 years.
When the patent term expired, the invention would become part of the public domain which meant that anyone could use it and sell it. The law directed that patent applications must include a description of the invention and be reviewed by the secretary of state, the secretary of war, and the attorney general.
The patent would issue if the invention was found to be "sufficiently useful and important. The copyright law was signed into law on May 31, Its title was "An Act for the encouragements of Learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies during the times therein mentioned.
Infringing works would be destroyed and a penalty imposed of 50 cents per page. Copies of each copyrighted work would be deposited with the secretary of state. During the years since they were signed, both laws have been amended many times. A new Patent Office was established in to be headed by a commissioner of patents.
In , Congress added a new requirement for patents. In addition to being useful and novel, a process or compound for which a patent is sought must also be "non-obvious.
Changes to the copyright law have included extending the term to the life of the author plus 70 years and expanding the types of materials that can be copyrighted to include new technologies such as sound recordings, photography, movies, and television. Palmer, U. Schild, U. Congress may, however, modify rights under an existing patent, provided vested property rights are not thereby impaired, 2 Footnote McClurg v.
Kingsland, 42 U. McQuewan, 55 U. Furthermore, the rights the present statutes confer are subject to the antitrust laws, though it can hardly be said that the cases in which the Court has endeavored to draw the line between the rights claimable by patentees and the kind of monopolistic privileges that are forbidden by those acts are entirely consistent in their holdings.
Universal Film Co. Suppiger Co. Masonite Corp.
0コメント