By any standard, the Congress is of, by and for the People.

There is clear Framers’ intent and lengthy discussion on protection of “information wants to be free”. The net-net of the arguments (Thomas Jefferson being reluctant but reasonable voice) is that by encouraging public, enabling disclosure, and offering quid-pro-quo protections, Society benefits. Nothing is lost when patents are applied for. Similarly, nothing is lost when speech is protected. Difference here is that applicants pay their way.

Given the tortured reading of the 2nd Amendment, how do you dismiss the active “To promote …” Congress certainly has been busy extending copyright protections and there has been not substantive or objective evidence that patents harm anyone, let alone preventing advancement of “Science and useful arts”. How are these two “properties” fairly and objectively compared to introduce some form of normalized discussion. It would have been interesting to hear Mary Beth Peters testify on behalf of the Library of Congress on it’s activities as contrast.

Is there a preference for real royal behavior of assigning rights to particular entities as a form of industrial policy? Will royalties make any more sense under that rubric? The US Patent system has been politicized, that is the simple observation. And, by the logic presented above, how does an Executive branch appointee report to Congress without any objective reading of the term “progress”?

With due respect, there are certainly a lot of proponents for change, theoretically, but not much of a public discussion of how and what should be protected in an information-based economy.

Point well taken, and attempted to clarify above. I agree that there is no obligation on Congress to exercise the power set forth in Clause 8, but I also note that it has clearly chosen to do so.

Section 102 states that a person is entitled, i.e. has a right granted by law, to a patent absent certain conditions set forth by Section 102, and further subject to other certain requirements such as non-obviousness, of which I’m sure you are aware. Would you agree or disagree that the law establishes a right for an individual to receive a patent for an invention? Your thoughts are welcomed.

The problems of posting in a hurry . . . I should always stick to the rule of thumb - think first, post later.

Thanks for the comments!

I agree with your position, and I too am concerned about the anti-patent bias at the USPTO. However, reading Article I section 8 as creating a constitutional right in citizens to receive patents is incorrect.

Art. I s.8 is a grant of power to Congress. It states what Congress has the power to do: “promote the progress of science and useful arts,” and how it is empowered to do it: “by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” Congress is empowered to grant the right, it does not exist on its own.

Furthermore, nothing in the U.S. Constitution expressly requires that Congress establish a patent system at all. It simply has the power to do so if it chooses. Congress also has the power pursuant to Art. I s.8 “to borrow money on the credit of the United States” and “to declare war.” I’m sure that you would agree that reading these clauses as imposing upon Congress some obligation to exercise the power does not make sense.