By the 16th century, the English Crown would habitually grant letters patent for monopolies to favoured persons (or people who were prepared to pay for them).[13] This power was used to raise money for the Crown, and was widely abused, as the Crown granted patents in respect of all sorts of common goods (salt, for example). Consequently, the Court began to limit the circumstances in which they could be granted. After public outcry, James I of England was forced to revoke all existing monopolies and declare that they were only to be used for "projects of new invention". This was incorporated into the Statute of Monopolies in which Parliament restricted the Crown's power explicitly so that the King could only issue letters patent to the inventors or introducers of original inventions for a fixed number of years. It also voided all existing monopolies and dispensations with [some] exception[s]....
There has also been some historical research that suggests that the "Statute of Monopolies" was a political compromise[1]. There wasn't really a lot of thought about maximizing innovation or incentives, or whatever. However, I fully agree that the popular understanding of the patent system has more to do with incentives for innovation and disclosure. But any engineer will tell you there's far more optimal ways to explain technical devices and inventions than legalese and claims.
On a related note, the USSR had a patent system. With patents. Who would have thought? This stuff is super ingrained.
The US constitution gives the reason explicitly as to "Promote the Progress of science and the useful Arts" though
Yeah, I agree. The entirety is:
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;
That's the whole description in the constitution. At the time (1780s-1790s), other countries had patent systems, including the Empire from which the authors drew inspiration for at least other aspects of the constitution. A patent system wasn't a new idea. For that matter, the 1790 implementation of the patent system also looked very similar to the others of the time. My guess is they were thinking "hey, let's do that too".
Comments
> The real purpose was to promote disclosure of how to make things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law
By the 16th century, the English Crown would habitually grant letters patent for monopolies to favoured persons (or people who were prepared to pay for them).[13] This power was used to raise money for the Crown, and was widely abused, as the Crown granted patents in respect of all sorts of common goods (salt, for example). Consequently, the Court began to limit the circumstances in which they could be granted. After public outcry, James I of England was forced to revoke all existing monopolies and declare that they were only to be used for "projects of new invention". This was incorporated into the Statute of Monopolies in which Parliament restricted the Crown's power explicitly so that the King could only issue letters patent to the inventors or introducers of original inventions for a fixed number of years. It also voided all existing monopolies and dispensations with [some] exception[s]....
There has also been some historical research that suggests that the "Statute of Monopolies" was a political compromise[1]. There wasn't really a lot of thought about maximizing innovation or incentives, or whatever. However, I fully agree that the popular understanding of the patent system has more to do with incentives for innovation and disclosure. But any engineer will tell you there's far more optimal ways to explain technical devices and inventions than legalese and claims.
On a related note, the USSR had a patent system. With patents. Who would have thought? This stuff is super ingrained.
[1] http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/Generally%20inconvenient:%20...
The US constitution gives the reason explicitly as to "Promote the Progress of science and the useful Arts" though
Yeah, I agree. The entirety is:
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;
That's the whole description in the constitution. At the time (1780s-1790s), other countries had patent systems, including the Empire from which the authors drew inspiration for at least other aspects of the constitution. A patent system wasn't a new idea. For that matter, the 1790 implementation of the patent system also looked very similar to the others of the time. My guess is they were thinking "hey, let's do that too".