🚀 go-pugleaf

jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:

>Since you live in the UK, you may be excused for this; the US Consititution
>makes no such requirement.  For the third time, here is the relevant
>passage, from Article I, section 8:

>  The Congress shall have Power ...
>    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;

>Note the following:

>1.  Congress is not required to grant exclusive rights (copyrights and
>patents); it merely has the power to do so.  It would be within the
>power of Congress to abolish patents entirely.

That is disputable.  In particular, part of the 5th amendment protects
property rights, and patents have a long legal history of being 
considered property rights.

>2.  The reason given for patents and copyrights is NOT, as some have argued,
>because of some property right or entitlement on the part of the inventor
>or author.  It is, rather, to promote the progress of science and useful
>arts.  Any patent system that actively hinders the progress of science
>and useful arts, therefore, violates at least the spirit of the US Constitution.

The reason given IN THAT PASSAGE is as you say.
However, that is not the only relevant passage.

   5th Amendment
   No person shall be ...  
   deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
   law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
   just compensation.

Dak
-- 
David A. 'Dak' Keldsen of SoftQuad, Inc. email: dak@sq.com  phone: 416-239-4801
"I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to
make it shorter."
               -- Blaise Pascal