|
|
Benjamins. |
John / Billybob
My Uncle Ben....Amazing man with two years of schooling.
What's the source for this statistic? The reason that I ask is because I was looking at this table at the USPTO just the other day. It shows that for the period from 1963 through 2004, 3,748,103 U.S. patents have been granted, and that 40% were of foreign origin -- and that in 2004, 48% of all U.S. patents granted were of foreign origin. (Extrapolating from the data in the table, my guess would be that figure will be over 50% within a few more years.)
There was a story from USA Today on December 6th Search for the most prolific inventors is a patent struggle which cataloged the author's difficulty in ascertaining what living person holds the most U.S. patents. It turns out that the best guess may be the owner of Tokyo's Semiconductor Energy Laboratory, Shunpei Yamazaki of Japan, who apparently holds 1,432 U.S. patents (Thomas Edison apparently held 1,093 according to this article.)
Great insight, Billybob. Thanks!
IIRC under the Corrupt Clinton Regime there was a movement afoot to change our patent and copyright laws to align with the more monopolistic and stifling European version.
Is my memory correct? And if so, what finally transpired?
Much more than a tinge, I would say.
With AIDS killing by the millions, countries are put to a decision about whether to respect a patent or save the citizenry. Bleeding heart that I am, I am all for the latter -- without lengthy negotiation with any corporate protector.
Protecting the writings of David Baldacci is "morality" with a little 'm'. Saving the lives of millions is "morality" with a giant 'M'.
It would be most interesting to see how the mind of Franklin would deal with the dilemma.
Anyone know when the royalties from imported scotch ends for the Kennedys? How did they get that unbelievable deal in the first place?
Just as Congress keeps bumping up the time limit to the point where it is nearing a "limit" of 100 years, as a benefit to their preferred supporters in Disney and Hollywood.
I like this article. It told me something important I didn't know - that Franklin's invention of creators' rights was the key to America's idea prosperity.
But what did Bill Gates invent? I thought he took Steve Jobs' "user-friendly" concept of computer operating systems and ran with it.
Excellent! I wish Americans understood the importance of patent and copyright laws, without which no one would spend a dime on R&D for new medicine or technological innovations and without which artists would be unable to make a living as artists (would Pink Floyd have written, recorded and produced Dark Side of the Moon if they would have only sold a handful of copies that would then be downloadable for free by everyone?).
|
|
Benjamins. |
Here's some excerpts:
In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the concept of property rights goes back (at least) to the Old Testament and the Ten Commandments. Most other religions and cultural traditions also have deep-rooted convictions about property rights.On the other hand, patent and copyright - protections for products of the mind - are a relatively recent phenomenon. The first patents and copyrights were issued in Venice in the 16th Century. At the time, Venice was a declining city-state that was slowly losing its trade hegemony to Florence and other rising powers. It devised copyrights, and then patents, as a means to attract the best and brightest of Europe to Venice. The Venetians offered authors and inventors a unique arrangement: the State would grant them a limited period of exclusivity that guaranteed a profit for their labors; in return they agreed to release their creations to the State once the grant had expired. It is important to note that this agreement was to be backed up with State power - those who encroached upon the grant of exclusivity would be punished by the State.
The Venetian innovation was extremely successful, and it quickly spread throughout Europe. However, patents and copyright were gradually perverted by the absolute monarchies of France and England. In England they degenerated into a "spoils" system used by the King to reward loyal cronies and rich benefactors. One needed a royal grant of copyright to operate a printing press for any purpose, and this led to a clever form of private censorship: by ensuring that all printing presses were in the hands of loyalists, the King could disavow any direct involvement in efforts to suppress dissenting opinions. Patents were used in a similar manner to ensure that trade and commerce were controlled by those loyal to the King.
In return for their continued loyalty, publishers (the primary holders of copyright) began to assert and demand ever more rights. In particular, they began to assert that authors ceded their rights to the publishers in perpetuity. They began to demand natural law property rights.
---
In 1709 Parliament passed the first modern copyright law, the Statute of Anne, which vested a 14-year statutory copyright in authors. The publishers vigorously fought this statute, first asking the judiciary to invalidate the statute, and then by seeking a judicial declaration that this act merely supplemented a pre-existing natural law copyright that authors could cede to publishers in perpetuity. However, in 1744 the House of Lords rejected this assertion, held that no natural law copyright existed, and that copyright was a purely statutory right created for a purely utilitarian purpose.
To America's Founding Fathers, all of this was recent history, they were very much aware of this debate, and it influenced their crafting of both the copyright clause and the First Amendment. In particular, the Founding Fathers:
- Placed ultimate control over patent and copyright in the hands of the legislative branch - not the executive.
- Stated that patents and copyrights were to be granted for "Limited Times" - a crucial distinction between a statutory right and a natural law property right.
- Established a purely utilitarian purpose for these statutory rights: "To Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
By clearing stating a public purpose for patents and copyrights, the Founding Fathers took them completely out of the realm of natural law property rights.
Greatest single invention was the lightning rod. To the topic of this thread, Franklin purposely refused to patent his invention.
Funny how that little phrase has since been strung up and shot between the eyes.
Franklin is definitely one of America's treasures, and isn't a shame most kids are only exposed to his kite trick in school and virtually nothing else regarding his views on liberty.
This is my favorite because it stuffs it right up the butt of our leftist educators who won't impress it on our children:
On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor to the Brits
Benjamin Franklin 1766
[Warning against overly generous welfare policies. — TGW]
…I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means.—I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world [but England] where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen?—On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.
[From Benjamin Franklin, "On the Price of Corn and the Management of the Poor" (1766), Writings (New York: Library of America, 1987), 587-88.]
Enjoy!!!
Wonderful! I've saved it: This will be a great subject for an essay.
Great historical post!
You bet! (I have several patents, myself)
Good article. Note that Article I, Section 8 is the only place in the pre-Bill-of-Rights Constitution where the word "right" or "rights" is used.
Where did Franklin get the idea for this powerful clause, the one that is the engine behind the economic miracle of the United States of America? Every other clause in the Constitution has its progenitors in the works of Baron Montesquieu, John Locke, and other political and historical writers known to the Framers of the Constitution. This clause, and this one alone, has no ancestor.
