The Congress shall have PowerThomas Jefferson was the first patent commissioner, and it was a registration system -- just like copyrights are today. It switched back and forth to an examination system then a registration system, finally ending up an examination system in about 1830 or so.8. 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 difference between the two is that an author can say "this is my original work, and I claim copyright on it," but in an examination system, it's up to an inventor to prove that his invention is novel and useful. That's like having to prove a negative.
The question is, how can two diametrically opposed systems of IP law be derived from the same Constitutional clause and both of them be Constitutional? It's no trick question, I'd really like to know!
The difference between the two is that an author can say "this is my original work, and I claim copyright on it," but in an examination system, it's up to an inventor to prove that his invention is novel and useful. That's like having to prove a negative.
The question is, how can two diametrically opposed systems of IP law be derived from the same Constitutional clause and both of them be Constitutional? It's no trick question, I'd really like to know!
Just parsing the text shows how both can be constitutional . . .
Copyright secures to authors, for a limited time, the exclusive right to their writings.
Patent secures to inventors, for a limited time, the exclusive right to their discoveries.
The difference between copyright and patent is usually easy to discern, although there are plenty of "grey" areas, and neither subject is easy to understand "well."
Copyright is a "prohibition on copying." Some things would be difficult to reproduce except by copying, and these things are suitable to protect by copyright. Examples are books and sculptures. But, under copyright law, two people can create similar items, and neither can restrain the other, provided neither person copied the other.
Patents are a "prohibition on practicing" the invention. Generally speaking (except for shop rights, or prior user rights, which vary from country to country), the holder of a patent can restrain all comers. The notion of patents is that some things can be practiced in various ways, but the inventor deserves protection (in exchange for giving the idea to the public domain after a limited time) on the concept. Light bulbs for example -- the inventor shows a generally spherical bulb, but the bulb could be flame shaped, cylindrical, rectangular, square, etc., and still be a light bulb.
Both patent and copyright have the ultimate goal of furthering the public benefit, of improving society overall. Without the possibility of patent, fewer people would attempt to invent, and those who did manage to invent would tend to keep their inventions secret (if possible). Similarly for copyright -- without some type of protection, fewer people would bother to create.