Thomas Jefferson on Patents(cdixon.org)
cdixon.org
Thomas Jefferson on Patents
http://cdixon.org/2011/07/16/thomas-jefferson-on-patents/
9 comments
The Supreme Court has long relied, implicitly and even explicitly, on Jefferson's views about patents. The Court provided a nice recounting of the evolution of those views in Part II of its landmark opinion in Graham v. John Deere & Co.[1] That part of the Graham opinion is definitely worth reading for anyone who has to deal with the U.S. patent system. The Court observed that:
--snip--
[Jefferson] rejected a natural rights theory in intellectual property rights and clearly recognized the social and economic rationale of the patent system. The patent monopoly was not designed to secure to the inventor his natural right in his discoveries. Rather, it was a reward, an inducement, to bring forth new knowledge.
The grant of an exclusive right to an invention was the creation of society -- at odds with the inherent free nature of disclosed ideas -- and was not to be freely given. Only inventions and discoveries which furthered human knowledge, and were new and useful, justified the special inducement of a limited private monopoly.
Jefferson did not believe in granting patents for small details, obvious improvements, or frivolous devices. His writings evidence his insistence upon a high level of patentability.
--snip--
(Extra paragraphing added.)
The Court noted that Jefferson clearly recognized the difficulty of "drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not."
These Jeffersonian views have been part of the underpinnings of U.S. patent policy for decades.
[1] 383 U.S. 1 (1966), available at http://supreme.justia.com/us/383/1/case.html
--snip--
[Jefferson] rejected a natural rights theory in intellectual property rights and clearly recognized the social and economic rationale of the patent system. The patent monopoly was not designed to secure to the inventor his natural right in his discoveries. Rather, it was a reward, an inducement, to bring forth new knowledge.
The grant of an exclusive right to an invention was the creation of society -- at odds with the inherent free nature of disclosed ideas -- and was not to be freely given. Only inventions and discoveries which furthered human knowledge, and were new and useful, justified the special inducement of a limited private monopoly.
Jefferson did not believe in granting patents for small details, obvious improvements, or frivolous devices. His writings evidence his insistence upon a high level of patentability.
--snip--
(Extra paragraphing added.)
The Court noted that Jefferson clearly recognized the difficulty of "drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not."
These Jeffersonian views have been part of the underpinnings of U.S. patent policy for decades.
[1] 383 U.S. 1 (1966), available at http://supreme.justia.com/us/383/1/case.html
I think this highlights exactly what is wrong in so many discussions of IP. People get so caught up on the word "right" in "copyright", that they argue for hours on whether there is a right to intellectual property, whether stealing IP is the same as stealing actual physical goods, despite the fact that no one is deprived of something, etc.
The truth is, that's all more-or-less off-topic. The reason we have copyright and a patent system is very simple: they're optimizations to make society better at producing more new stuff. The big question is, do they work? Another valid question is, even if society creates more new stuff under a patent system, is it worth it considering the other problems a patent system has?
The truth is, that's all more-or-less off-topic. The reason we have copyright and a patent system is very simple: they're optimizations to make society better at producing more new stuff. The big question is, do they work? Another valid question is, even if society creates more new stuff under a patent system, is it worth it considering the other problems a patent system has?
> The reason we have copyright and a patent system is very simple: they're optimizations to make society better at producing more new stuff.
Any optimization will sacrifice one thing for another. Perhaps a better approach would be to revisit our assumptions. Why do we assume that efficiency should trump freedom? Why do we assume that everyone will agree with the efficiency-is-king way of thinking? Why do we not consider the effects of our philosophy? We have smartphones and laptops now, but by forcing everyone to specialise they only gain happiness in the 'ignorance is bliss' understanding of it.
Any optimization will sacrifice one thing for another. Perhaps a better approach would be to revisit our assumptions. Why do we assume that efficiency should trump freedom? Why do we assume that everyone will agree with the efficiency-is-king way of thinking? Why do we not consider the effects of our philosophy? We have smartphones and laptops now, but by forcing everyone to specialise they only gain happiness in the 'ignorance is bliss' understanding of it.
> The reason we have copyright and a patent system is very simple: they're optimizations to make society better at producing more new stuff. The big question is, do they work?
The simple answer is "no." There is no evidence that any patent or copyright monopoly has led to greater production of knowledge and culture. These laws are optimized for control, not for the expansion of knowledge.
The simple answer is "no." There is no evidence that any patent or copyright monopoly has led to greater production of knowledge and culture. These laws are optimized for control, not for the expansion of knowledge.
Vote him down but it is true. See: http://blog.mises.org/10217/yet-another-study-finds-patents-...
yet somehow people keep repeating this.. He is also right that copyright came out of the desire to censor people. Patents are a relic from the time when state monopoly power was granted to many more things than just inventions.
yet somehow people keep repeating this.. He is also right that copyright came out of the desire to censor people. Patents are a relic from the time when state monopoly power was granted to many more things than just inventions.
I am surprised that neither of you have befallen downvotes as I had when I explained similar things.
I'm a lot more negative now than before I posted. Sorry for pointing out the fact that no proof exists that patents encourage innovation. Keep believing fairy tales kids.
That's interesting. Are we still following those precedents but just lost when it comes to software-related patents or are corporations and litigators distorting the system?
excellent summation
And, really, that is probably the way it should be. Patents are out of control and not really providing benefit commensurate with their current cost.
It seemed to be a common thread among the founders that the unencumbered sharing of discoveries was a greater good. Patents serve as roadblocks creating a temporary dead end in the process of discovery. It's better to share and have everyone benefit from the fruits of innovation. Of course, most the founders were well off anyhow and patent trolls didn't exist yet, so the topic was a different matter at the time.
http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/08/31/ben-franklin-on-patent...
http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/08/31/ben-franklin-on-patent...
Jefferson: "other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."
> it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
Jefferson might well have thought so, but it's very far from being self-evident. The Industrial Revolution happened mainly (albeit not exclusively) in England.
Jefferson might well have thought so, but it's very far from being self-evident. The Industrial Revolution happened mainly (albeit not exclusively) in England.
And yet the amount of horse-power generated from steam engines pretty much flatlined in England when Watt's patent was granted, while in other countries it went through the roof. When Watt's patent expired, then the real industrialisation took place.
"During the period of Watt's patents the United Kingdom added about 750 horsepower of steam engines per year. In the thirty years following Watt's patents, additional horsepower was added at a rate of more than 4,000 per year."
http://mises.org/daily/3280#note4
"During the period of Watt's patents the United Kingdom added about 750 horsepower of steam engines per year. In the thirty years following Watt's patents, additional horsepower was added at a rate of more than 4,000 per year."
http://mises.org/daily/3280#note4
That's definitely a factor to be considered. Over time, I think it's fair to say that England significantly outpaced the Continent in industrialization. It's hard to say whether overall the English patent system facilitated that process, at the cost of imposing temporary roadblocks such as what you describe.
* Would Watt and his investor have built steam engines without the patent?
* Did the patent enable Watt to create a market which otherwise did not exists?
So its not hard to say "whether overall the English patent system facilitated that process": it most certainly did not facilitate that process, and the "temporary roadblocks" you describe were demonstrably the only effect, and a negative one.
To argue "the english had the most dramatic industrial revolution and the english had a patent system, therefore the patent system caused the industrial revolution" is to ignore the political, economic and scientific history of the country.
Edit: this bit is my opinion: England's supremacy is entirely due to its separation from the catholic church: it generated a need for military supremacy and at the same time freed the minds of thinkers to be scientific. Do you think Cambridge scholars had to worry about being locked up by the inquisition like Galileo?
I read that note - that's an absurd analysis. It assumes (against all sense) that the increase in horsepower would be linear and is based on a couple of numbers that themselves were pretty sketchy estimates.
Yes that is a fair point and I should be flogged for referencing numbers so poorly supported. However, that does not make them wrong. A thorough review of all the evidence shows that: a) Watt stopped adding inventions after 1782, and b) when his patent expired in 1804 horsepower of new engines rose immediately and significantly. After securing his patents he left the engine unchanged for some 22 years.
It should also be said that Watt's patent was an exception: his connections to power allowed his patent to be extended for 24 years by parliament. However the "regular" patent system impeded Watt. He had to use the inefficient sun and planet gear instead of a crank because Pickard had patented it. Pickard patented the crank: a device we have evidence of from 5BC. Watt used his less efficient gear system until the patent expired, and then immediately switched. Pickard had offered to license the crank in exchange for the condenser, but Watt spent a year inventing his gears instead.
Fact: a number of significant improvements were made to steam engines by people other than Watt.
Fact: the patent system prevented anyone but Watt from selling steam engines because he had a patent for the condenser, without which all other inventions were pointless.
Fact: Watt did not license any of these improvements, nor allow anyone to license his patent, nor make any further improvements of his own.
Fact: only when Watt's patent expired were these technologies incorporated into products (and immediately so).
Fact: Steam engine technology was stopped for 22 years by the patent system.
The numbers are not in question. The question is, "without patents, would any of the inventions have happened at all?" Watt basically bankrupted himself developing the condenser to the extent that he took a job for a couple of years. It then got investment in exchange for a share of the patent. Would anyone have invested in his idea without patent protection? I do not have any proof one way or the other, only evidence that thousands of businesses are started every year without support of a patent.
The issue is of great concern to HN readers: we make a living through our intellectual property. Watt made a ton of money because he could patent his idea. Without patent protection, he would have had to compete in manufacturing, service, or rapid innovation. With patent protection, he could have one good idea and hit the jackpot. Although I may personally like the idea of making a million off an idea, I believe that the world is better served by allowing ideas to be unpatentable, and instead requiring competition in execution.
It should also be said that Watt's patent was an exception: his connections to power allowed his patent to be extended for 24 years by parliament. However the "regular" patent system impeded Watt. He had to use the inefficient sun and planet gear instead of a crank because Pickard had patented it. Pickard patented the crank: a device we have evidence of from 5BC. Watt used his less efficient gear system until the patent expired, and then immediately switched. Pickard had offered to license the crank in exchange for the condenser, but Watt spent a year inventing his gears instead.
Fact: a number of significant improvements were made to steam engines by people other than Watt.
Fact: the patent system prevented anyone but Watt from selling steam engines because he had a patent for the condenser, without which all other inventions were pointless.
Fact: Watt did not license any of these improvements, nor allow anyone to license his patent, nor make any further improvements of his own.
Fact: only when Watt's patent expired were these technologies incorporated into products (and immediately so).
Fact: Steam engine technology was stopped for 22 years by the patent system.
The numbers are not in question. The question is, "without patents, would any of the inventions have happened at all?" Watt basically bankrupted himself developing the condenser to the extent that he took a job for a couple of years. It then got investment in exchange for a share of the patent. Would anyone have invested in his idea without patent protection? I do not have any proof one way or the other, only evidence that thousands of businesses are started every year without support of a patent.
The issue is of great concern to HN readers: we make a living through our intellectual property. Watt made a ton of money because he could patent his idea. Without patent protection, he would have had to compete in manufacturing, service, or rapid innovation. With patent protection, he could have one good idea and hit the jackpot. Although I may personally like the idea of making a million off an idea, I believe that the world is better served by allowing ideas to be unpatentable, and instead requiring competition in execution.
Well I'm glad I nitpicked now, because that's some fascinating extra info, thanks! I actually agree with you, despite my comment, I'm just no fan of mises.org.
It might be selfish but I'm arguing against software patents I prefer not to get bogged down in the question of patents generally. And especially the moral and ethical frameworks that they may or may not make sense in (like positive and negative rights etc). They just don't make sense for software.
It might be selfish but I'm arguing against software patents I prefer not to get bogged down in the question of patents generally. And especially the moral and ethical frameworks that they may or may not make sense in (like positive and negative rights etc). They just don't make sense for software.
Another illustration of how far we've strayed from founding principles. Sometimes our system feels like a large software project gone wrong. People keep adding line after line without refactoring or bolting on libraries that conflict with initial design or add a head-spinning array of conditionals that make it unrecognizeable.
We have more tools to search for a better way that is equitable to all. If only we had a majority of politicians that could engage in more intellectual discourse and not legislate between campaigning and serving constituents and corporate interests before the people.
We have more tools to search for a better way that is equitable to all. If only we had a majority of politicians that could engage in more intellectual discourse and not legislate between campaigning and serving constituents and corporate interests before the people.
Legal code and computer code can have more in common than either politicians or programmers usually want to admit... It is some sort of miracle that the USA has lasted this long at all!
This quote seems to fall victim to the Naturalistic fallacy. That which is natural is not necessarily good, and that which is good is not necessarily natural. Whether or not patents have an overall positive effect is reasonable to debate, just don't say that they're unnatural, and therefore wrong.
The point is not quite that.
The point is not: they are not natural therefore they are wrong. It is: they are not natural, therefore they are not simply, automatically right -- they can have only a practical justification.
The point is not: they are not natural therefore they are wrong. It is: they are not natural, therefore they are not simply, automatically right -- they can have only a practical justification.
The fact that we managed to get to the point where patents were legislated, while developing all of the necessary technology in the process, without patents proves that patents are not required for progress to occur.
While it is certainly true that patents are not required for progress to occur, I don't believe anyone is arguing that.
The question is whether more progress occurs under the current patent system than would without it (or under an altered system). Are inventors more likely to be properly rewarded for their inventions, thereby motivating them to invent? And does the value of this motivated invention outweigh the value of allowing everyone the ability to freely build on others' inventions?
It is certainly a tricky question to answer, but you can look at the problems faced by countries that don't have strong patent enforcement to get an idea of what would happen if we scrapped the system entirely.
It does seem to me that the situation has gotten out of hand, with completely obvious inventions (especially in the software field) being granted patents, but that doesn't mean that doing away with the entire system is the answer - which your argument here seems to imply.
The question is whether more progress occurs under the current patent system than would without it (or under an altered system). Are inventors more likely to be properly rewarded for their inventions, thereby motivating them to invent? And does the value of this motivated invention outweigh the value of allowing everyone the ability to freely build on others' inventions?
It is certainly a tricky question to answer, but you can look at the problems faced by countries that don't have strong patent enforcement to get an idea of what would happen if we scrapped the system entirely.
It does seem to me that the situation has gotten out of hand, with completely obvious inventions (especially in the software field) being granted patents, but that doesn't mean that doing away with the entire system is the answer - which your argument here seems to imply.
The more important question we should be asking is if we really think that sacrificing freedom in the name of efficiency is a good idea. Freedom is equated with happiness, efficiency is equated with a lot of stuff. Have our mountains of stuff managed to solve world hunger? End wars? Do they make us happier? I think that it makes sense to increase efficiency up to a certain point, after which it has negative effects. That point is bringing people out of poverty, since studies have found that those are the only conditions under which money/stuff increase happiness.
I thought I was reading something written by Richard Stallman.
I couldn't help thinking about software when Jefferson refers to ideas. The thinking power called software...
Jefferson was also strongly opposed to creating international debt. Great, you say, we wouldn't have our current fiscal crisis. Except that some debt was a necessary step for the United States to become the financial powerhouse it is, based upon international trade. If Jefferson had gotten his way on debt, we'd be a small nation of rather poor farmers, at least until a richer nation invaded.
So, be cautious in quoting the wisdom of the founding fathers. They were by no means infallible, though selective quoting of their vast writing might lead one to believe that they were.
So, be cautious in quoting the wisdom of the founding fathers. They were by no means infallible, though selective quoting of their vast writing might lead one to believe that they were.
We were a small nation of rather poor farmers, right up until a handful of Canadians (British at the time) beat the snot out of our military and burned our capital in the War of 1812. If the marines hadn't been funded during the First Barbary War in 1800-1805, we probably would have lost the War of 1812. It really put the lie to Jefferson's agrarian utopia.
Are you saying that the first barbary war was funded by debt, or that Jefferson was a pacifist, or what exactly?
Not a pacifist, but he was against the idea of a standing army. And really, after seeing how Britain's army was behaving at the time, I don't blame him. http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/2... The War of 1812 made it clear that any mechanized force could just walk all over us, and we needed a mechanized army simply for defense. This would require some industrialization.
Of course the War of 1812 didn't cause the industrialization of America, it was just one huge reason an economy based almost completely on agriculture wasn't going to work for us.
Of course the War of 1812 didn't cause the industrialization of America, it was just one huge reason an economy based almost completely on agriculture wasn't going to work for us.
Jefferson wasn't against industrialisation, nor was he against a strong army. He just didn't want it to be a "standing army". He imagined that you might end up with an organization that is run by an elite, using canon fodder made up of the poor, that serves its own purposes. Would any of the founding fathers be surprised that we have a standing army and two totally pointless wars?
Instead, he wanted every citizen to be required to do military service, as the swiss and israelis do. He believed that if every US citizen had military training, we would have wiped the floor with the canadians in 1812. I agree.
Instead, he wanted every citizen to be required to do military service, as the swiss and israelis do. He believed that if every US citizen had military training, we would have wiped the floor with the canadians in 1812. I agree.
So what if a founding father had a clearly set out view of how things should be, it's not like anyone cares what the right people think, they just take their view, and use their own ego to get it somewhere. Some of them even like to ignore what was written down.
They purely being the crappy politicians. I had some better way to word this in my head.
I've read articles of about that length from about 20 people of that century, his is the hardest to read, sort of double-speak.
They purely being the crappy politicians. I had some better way to word this in my head.
I've read articles of about that length from about 20 people of that century, his is the hardest to read, sort of double-speak.
To be clear, this was an attacking jest at republicans.
Interestingly, Thomas Jefferson ended up being the first patent examiner of the United States. The first U.S. patent law said that the secretary of state (Jefferson at the time) was to take a lead role in examining patents. Jefferson was a notoriously difficult examiner and granted very few patents.
For more details: http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/pate...