
Thomas Jefferson on Patents - apievangelist
http://cdixon.org/2011/07/16/thomas-jefferson-on-patents/
======
hristov
It should be noted that Thomas Jefferson's opinion on patents changed and he
eventually believed that some patents may provide social benefit if only
granted for a limited time.

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...](http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-
collections/patents)

~~~
dctoedt
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>

~~~
edanm
I think this highlights exactly what is wrong in so many discussions of IP.
People get so caught up on the word "right" in "copy _right_ ", 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?

~~~
greyfade
> 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.

~~~
praxeologist
Vote him down but it is true. See: [http://blog.mises.org/10217/yet-another-
study-finds-patents-...](http://blog.mises.org/10217/yet-another-study-finds-
patents-do-not-encourage-innovation/)

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.

~~~
arecibodrake
I am surprised that neither of you have befallen downvotes as I had when I
explained similar things.

~~~
praxeologist
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.

------
russell
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."

~~~
dctoedt
> _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.

~~~
buff-a
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>

~~~
dctoedt
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.

~~~
jamieb

      * 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?
    

To argue that patents were overall beneficial, one has to argue that without
the patent, steam engines would not have become popular, and for that two
things would have had to be true: 1. Watt would not build engines and 2.
Nobody else would build them either. There is an argument that nobody else
would have built them because there was no market, and only Watt's patent
allowed them to create the market. Except that to believe that, one has to
ignore the fact that a) England was undergoing the industrial revolution in
all aspects (not just steam engines) and b) there was a huge need for
industrial power removed from water wheels. Watt did _not_ invent the steam
engine. He invented an improvement, simultaneously along with many others. But
only he had the clout to get the government to enforce his patent.

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?

------
flocial
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.

~~~
killerswan
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!

------
rflrob
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.

~~~
hxa7241
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.

------
Produce
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.

~~~
mmorris
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.

~~~
Produce
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.

------
va_coder
I thought I was reading something written by Richard Stallman.

------
spottiness
I couldn't help thinking about software when Jefferson refers to ideas. The
thinking power called software...

------
georgieporgie
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.

~~~
sp332
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.

~~~
jamieb
Are you saying that the first barbary war was funded by debt, or that
Jefferson was a pacifist, or what exactly?

~~~
sp332
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...](http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-
historian/24671) 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.

~~~
jamieb
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.

------
tobylane
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.

~~~
tobylane
To be clear, this was an attacking jest at republicans.

