You correctly state that the process could be made better. We spend lots of time imparting that view. as with anything government run...
You also correctly state inventions are at once expressive and functional. Where I disagree:
1.We are not innovating faster, more, better for many reasons. My husband wrote a book on this very subject (The Decline and Fall of the American Entrepreneur: How little Known Laws and Regulations are Killing Innovation, 2008).
I will address the reasons you stated in your response. There is a direct correlation between innovative vs. non-innovative countries and their IP protection levels. As to the research paper vs. invention ratio: if the government is allowing startups to form efficiently, the rate of invention will sky-rocket (just look at the 90s). When the government is pumping a bunch of money into research-the result is lots of papers. After all, if I'm getting paid to do research I'll do that, if there is incentive to build a business, I'll do that. When regulation was less you saw a tremedous surge of tech transfer out of universities. It has slowed tremendously in the 2000s.

On the Promotion of Science and Arts in the Constitution.

I agree that a standard exclusivity should be cast as far as possible.

Software is at once an expression and a functional machine (Science and Art). Heck, even cars bear a measure of expression. I happen to like to keep mine in showroom condition, when time allows. That is expression, even if others don't see the art.

The clause defines a power. Formality slows things publicly, including the effectiveness of rights enforcement. Making the process complicated slows things even more. That is why you see so many research papers, and few practical inventions from them. From a philosophical view, the innovation protection process is more destructive to innovation than protective.

If I am not mistaken, that is within the gist of this article.

These columns are way too thin...

Starting a new chain...
I only get about 1024 pixels here.
The column is way too thin...

Every evidence about this clause shows there was no discussion of simplifying or co-mingling of function. The reason why they are in the Constitution as opposed to letting each stae define the rules, like they do with other property rights, is the right is a national right, not confined to one state or another-like land-and therefore, more efficient and effective to protect these rights at the federal level.

The U.S. tried a registration system for patents, roughly from the 1830s to 1836. the US found was it clogged the courts with lawsuits, the courts were illprepared to handle the technical issues involved, and the huge uncertainty whether the patent was valid made your patent less valuable. Decided by Congress, a professional examination to determine whether your idea was patentable would decrease the number of lawsuits and increase the value of a patent. The system was very similar to a system used successfully by Venice in the 1400s. An examined system is better than a registration system for those reasons. However, a number of legalistic formalities have been imposed on inventors over the last 150 years that provide little value but signifigantly increase the cost of obtaining a patent.

And thus you defend the process and business of copyright and patent, which has become such a byzantine racket as to require government approval for rights protection! That is my point about todays "legal" system. It is so far from a justice system as to favor the best lawyer, because that is how the best lawyers want it! In arguing process, you necessarily step away from philosophy, and show your true bent!
A truly just protection of Authors and Inventors would automatically protect anything shared with others that is reliably time/date stamped. In the days of the founders, that would have required posting in a library. Today, that is just saving to a server.
Is that too much to humanly ask of a government? Is it too much to ask the post office to get my package to the other side of the planet overnight?

I am not sure how much more co-mingled they could be! In particular, the words patent, and copy do not appear anywhere. Also separately named are Authors and Inventors. Clearly, the intent was to simplify the proceedings as much as possible.

Ditto!

Also, patents and copyrights are not co-mingled in the Constitution. Rights are referred to in the same clause, but separately named.

That is why we love our business. Everyday, we talk with creative, talented, driven inventors and business people who thrive on building something to solve problems or offer an alternative to existing choices.
Separating the legal system from the patent system. You suggest anarchy. A legal system is part of any free market system. I'm not suggesting our patent system is perfect, far from it-especially after the America Invents Act passed. But if you can't protect property rights, they lose their value. IF some guy could just show up at your house, take over your guest bedroom and their was no legal remedy to have him removed, people would stop purchasing houses or at the very least, purchase them for a much lower price.
Publishing Your idea. You misunderstand what a copyright is. Regestering a copyright with the U.S. is process with cost. Publishing your idea is just that-putting it out there. IT does not give you the legal right to the invention unless you apply to the PTO for that right. BUT, it will be prior art and if someone later applies for the patent, it will show up with a date and establish the inventorship with you and they will be denied the property right.
Finally, why software should be patented vs. copyright. You can surely copyright the software. Here is what you'll get: protection over the EXACT copy of the code you write. Software is a way of wiring an electrical circuit. You could write the code many different ways and implement the same invention. A patent covers the invention, not the expression.

I read your blog on Property Rights, Possession and Objects. Perhaps now we are discussing the finer points thereof. I harken back to the difference between a justice system and legal system. This ties into my conclusion. One would have to have omniscience to make a justice system work.

So, in these days of writings with functions (software), the lines between copyright an patent are blurred, in fact. This is what has the lawyers all asunder in cyberspace. The base is quite literally Morpheus' "construct" program... all white, with "residual self image" forming each actors (a more technical than descriptive term) display.

In a space without government, rules are enforced by the guy with the most resources. Some (like myself) yearn to establish a controlled space, even if very few others get to see it. This is necessarily an exercise in self discovery and exploration. But I digress...

As stated above, the problems begin when you try to share your discoveries. Even the patent system is comingled with the copyright system in the Constitution, without mention of either. In my view, this co-mingling was intentional, given the view that complicated law was equated with tyranny in the days of the founding! Of course, the founders never imagined the 20th century (sic). Entrepreneurs cannot hope to compete with IBM in the patent realm, so they don't!

And... you mentioned the way around the expense and time in getting a patent, via copyright! The Lawyers are still trying to think that law works like software. I submit that they will never get there. They will not get there, because people are creative, and largely autonomous. The looter types will always dive into the minutae, and miss the larger spirit of the transaction and its connection to other important contexts that were not included, usually due to time! Truth will out. The legal system will never get it right! Why do we trust it so?

The space without government permeates society, even in government. A poet once said, "God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy." Rather than "due diligence" we should default to competition. Leave government to do what government does, which generally involves the use of force. That leaves the rest of us to publish, regularly, rather than fully develop. At least that way a person has a marker for time, for when push comes to shove (force). That means that each Junior High graduate should know that the basis of our economy is Caveat Emptor!

I think we can all agree that creators and producers deserve reward, and looters and moochers should go hungry. Rather than focus on hard defining lines, perhaps we should focus on identifying the producers. Making that change would indeed be a revolution. Lights out in New York anyone?

First, the difference between copyrights and patents. Copyrights protect the expression, not the underlying ideas. Patents protect inventions which are unique combinations of elements which solve an objective problem. Ultimately, copyrights are about aesthetics. Patents are about function. (we are not discussing design patents at this time).
Second, Patent style Fair Use: when you buy a product that has patents on it, you get a license to use those patents in regards to that product. First Sale doctrine. Which allows you to modify that product without worrying about violating those patents. The same is technically true for software. However, most software is not sold to you it is licensed and the contractual terms of the license do not allow you to modify the software. Don't blame the patent system for that-this is contractual and all about the terms of the sale. You can yell at the company about the terms of the sale, but that has absolutely nothing to do with patent rules.
looters and moochers: If I write a musical score and you sing it to a paying audience, you still have an obligation to pay me. I have rights in the score and you have rights in the performance. The same is true with inventions. You own the physical version and have rights in it, but the inventor has rights like having rights in the score of music.
Independent invention: There are a finite number of musical notes, yet we don't hear about simultaneous scores being created all the time, and yet the number of combinations of inventions far, far outweigh the numbers of combinations for musical scores. I am always perplexed by this argument. "I already invented that and a moocher came along and profiting off of it" The reality is more likely that a company was long before interested in that same problem and was working on it. Companies purposely do not perform due diligence as a legal strategy-speaking of moochers. :)
Newton vs Liebniz: If I were to recreate Calculus today, that would not make me the discoverer of Calculus. The inventor and discoverer are the first. Words have meaning. There is no second inventor-there is only the first. Newton and Liebniz each discovered different parts of the Calculus. Any legal system is going to rely on the ability to determine the facts. Hence, we have a patent system, enshrined in the body of the Constitution, to protect inventors' rights. Finally, to the question of "severe disadvantage" if an inventor does not build a company around the invention. If you are concerned someone else will patent the idea, publish your work, which in this day and age is simple to do. If you are concerned that you can't pursue every opportunity that life presents you, then welcome to the club! If only I had the time!
Getting a patent is the single most expensive, time-consuming researched property right you can obtain. If you had to wait ten years to take title to your house, you would be outraged and it decreases the investment.
Legal systems ARE complicated. But most of what we are discussing here is a philosophical argument about property rights with legal overlap-I have to point out what is legal and what is not with regards to the property rights to avoid confusion. Consider reading our post on the difference between property rights, possessions and objects. Thanks for the civilized debate.

Thanks for the welcome! In the age of software, copyrights and patents are essentially the same thing... Regardless of the "letter" of the law. Copyrights apply to "written" work, and patents to physical. Software is written, but is sold like a machine. Its function is undeniable. Not so the written word of lesser impact! Part of the problem is folks taking action with too little knowledge, and other cases where folks took no action. This applies to inventors, businessmen, and government types. In the realms other than philosophy, we often conflate actors with their successes and errors. Note that errors of omission are often harder to deal with than errors of commission. Ultimately, each should pay for their error, and the rest of us should deal with a clean law. We do not have a justice system, we have a legal system. The legal definition of Fair Use and the concept are likewise dissimilar. If I modify my Ford to get 200 mpg and carry a 30,000 lb payload, the vehicle is still a Ford, and recognizable as such! It is MY Ford, because I bought it. I have the right to make modifications, and be killed by them. (Patent style Fair Use) If I drive it to Canada, the patents and modifications retain their ownership attributes. Lawyers only like to try to think that law works like software! It is only when I try to package and sell my modification idea that I run into trouble. The work is done and proven. Now the looters and moochers hop on. Unfortunately, I have spent all my time designing the breakthrough, and lost track of where folks are. If I do not spend effort building a company to perform the work, I will be at a severe disadvantage. Meanwhile, the advance may be arrived at by another. To illustrate, I ask who invented the Calculus? People taking advantage of others is wrong, but it existed long before legal systems. Wrong in this case equates to the use of force. I think we can all agree with Ayn's statement in that regard. This is the problem with getting to deep in the weeds. Neither of us was there. Everything is postulation without the full context. If only everyone was a articulate as Henry Roark!

Welcome to the Gulch.
The cost of filing a patent lawsuit is so expensive that MANY patents are infringed where inventors cannot enforce their rights. This was not a jury decision, and Chase admitted under oath they infringed. Their response was to go to Congress (along with other banks) to get legislation passed that ONLY applies to THEM that they would not be held liable. This is the WORST sort of crony capitalism that would make an Atlas Shrugged example blanch.
To your second point, patents never have been forever. See Rand's discussion on point in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Physical property rights do not last forever either. You can't own something if you're dead.
To your third point: If we went "back" to the system you suggest, that would ACTUALLY EXTEND the term longer than exists today. The patent term today is 20 years from the date of filing. However, a patent is not ENFORCEABLE until it issues. Since it takes three to ten years to issue, the effective term is somewhere around 15 years.
Fair Use: Already applies to copyrights. It makes no sense to suggest Fair Use of patents. Patents cover an invention, copyrights cover the expression of an idea. Second, there is a de facto Fair Use for patents because it costs so much to enforce them that you can only afford to sue a MAJOR infringer. But I don't think this is a good thing. When you use someone's invention without paying, you have diminished the values of their rights. The same cannot be said about copyrights. ex: if I write a book, and someone takes a page out as an excerpt to write about it and gives me credit, it does not diminish the economic value of my rights, which is the whole basis of the Fair Use doctrine.
Already, it's EASY to steal inventions because patents (unlike copyrights) only apply in the countries in which you apply for the right. No one can afford to enforce their rights world wide. The cost is too prohibitive. Unlike patents, if I drive my book across the border into Canada or wherever, I still have my rights in it.

1. Proven in Court? Let's see... argue, and have twelve people decide who is right. Yup! Iron Clad...
2. Ayn had a particular way of describing legal action. "Left a trail so byzantine that the action would be done before anyone untangled it." If the work is not as obvious as moving freight, it probably infringes on prior work, IF you assume that the guy that invented the wheel deserves royalties on rolling stock!
3. The Constitution of these United States gives congress the power to protect inventors and creators. There was a time when that meant 14 years, plus ONE 14 year extension at the behest of the original creator. We should go back to that. Patents and copyrights should be tempered by Fair Use!

"properly issued," according to you? Ayn Rand has written extensively on property rights. I have shared many of those passages here, as well as cataloged all of the passages in Atlas Shrugged regarding invention and invention theft on our blog. I am an entrepreneur. I work with inventors and creators, some of whom have ideas that are truly disruptive across many industries. Believing that patents are good for some inventions and not others smacks as faith-based to me. Software is just a way of wiring an electrical circuit and all inventions are combinations of known elements. Whenever you have a huge disruptive activity happening, about ten years from that time you will see lawsuits. It's mostly because companies refuse to do proper due diligence. You wouldn't buy a house without first checking the title to the property. Why build a product that potentially infringes a patent. Patent applications are published within 18 months of filing. They are out there for anyone to read and see if they infringe or even to design around. After all, that is what moves technology forward. For the record, I am no fan of Microsoft. They have infringed as much or more than they claim others infringe them. That's why large portfolios of patents protect these large companies.So much money and brain power is tied up in R&D, that there has to be some form of return on the investment. If all software were to be freely shared, you would begin to see a decline in the very disruptive inventing I mentioned earlier.

AHA! So you're one of the looters. I was about to ask who was paying you to have these indefensible positions.

Let the record show that you never met my challenge: to name one Open Source project that has violated anyone's copyright, trademark, or (properly issued) patent.

I'm sorry that your income is dependent on looters and parasites, but -- not really. Perhaps someday you will actually READ Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead, and understand -- truly understand -- what they are about. As opposed to the way Microsoft tried to co-opt their message in the late 1990's / early 00's. And perhaps someday you will acquire some actual principles, instead of feeding off of the energy of others.

Now go tell your corporate masters (Microsoft, I presume?) that you have utterly failed to co-opt this forum to their purposes.

I don't just want to go back and forth here, because we are clearly on opposite sides of this issue. First, I want to say that our business is intellectual property and specifically patents. I am well aware of the trend to deny business method patents and specifically software patents. In this particular case, we have studied the claims of the patent that was infringed and you are incorrect as to what the patent covered.
Further, if Datatreasury claimed something so obvious, the banks would have already had this technology in place. They did not, and this was proven in court. Instead, they initially paid for the use of the technology, because the process saved them billions per year and then stopped paying when it became clear infringement was happening across many large banks. JP Morgan Chase admitted under oath that they willing infringed many of the claims covered under this patent. It is always easy to dismiss someone else's work., but if all the patent entailed was hooking up a scanner, the patent would not have been allowed. At the patent Office, applications undergo rigorous prior art examinations, contrary to antecdotal stories you hear about patenting peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and the like. Many applicants wait up to ten years or longer to to get their patent. Imagine being in a high tech field where technology generations go quickly-10 years is a lifetime. If software inventions are not protected, the industry will slow in the US and inventors will patent where they can take title. The US is already losing claim to some of the most talented producers in the world. I do not want to see this happen.

Big Business stole nothing.

The guy obtained a patent for hooking up a scanner to a computer server.

After looting hundreds of millions of dollars from from banks who had done nothing wrong, the looter's scheme finally got shut down.

Serves him right. If only the banks could recover the money he stole from them.