Recent discussions on the abolition of patents for inventions in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the Netherlands : $b Evidence, speeches, and papers in its favour
General
Recent discussions on the abolition of patents for inventions in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the Netherlands : $b Evidence, speeches, and papers in its favour
Patents
Mere priority affords no good ground for the exclusive right to an
invention. The free exercise of thought is the common right of all.
Wherefore if A excogitate a principle to-day, and B, by independent
thought, excogitate the same principle to-morrow, both have an equal
right to benefit by the discovery; and A has no natural right to debar
B from the legitimate fruit of his intellectual effort. It may be even
that A had no real priority of thought, but was only more knowing, more
greedy, or was simply nearer to a patent office, and, though latest
in arriving at the idea, was the first to secure a legal monopoly of
its use. To found a right on such a race for priority is evidently
irrational. The simultaneousness of discoveries and inventions by
different minds, is a well-established fact in the history of science.
Certain facts and reasonings, all tending in a given direction, are
before the world. These act simultaneously on various minds, and produce
in each the same development of thought. Now, with what justice do we
pick out one of these many thinkers and give him a monopoly of the common
thought? Nor is the injustice confined to the original idea, of which
we grant a monopoly. By tying up one idea, we stop the whole course of
thought in a given direction, and thus interfere generally, and to an
indefinite extent, with the intellectual activity of other men.
The inventor benefits by the ideas of the community, and has, therefore,
no right to a special privilege for his idea. The universal thought of
mankind is a common good; all benefit by it freely, and all are bound
freely to contribute to it. Every thinker owes an incalculable debt to
society. The inventor has the benefit of all foregone human thought, of
all existing civilization. He has the unbought advantage of all laws,
all language, all philosophy. He has the free use of all the methods and
appliances, spiritual and material, which have been painfully elaborated
by the thinkers and workers of all time. Why, then, should he alone have
an exclusive privilege, in respect of the infinitesimal addition which he
may make to the work of ages?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account