The Law of Intellectual Property : or An Essay on the Right of Authors and Inventors to a Perpetual Property in their Ideas

Part 2, Chapter 6, Section 4
SECTION IV. Review of the Case of Donaldson and another, vs. Becket and another. This case came before the House of Lords, in 1774, on an appeal from an injunction against publishing a book, whose statutory term of copyright had expired. The Lords directed the judges to give their opinions to the House on the following questions, viz.: 1. "Whether at common law, an author of any book or literary composition had the sole right of first printing and publishing the same for sale; and might bring an action against any person who printed, published and sold the same without his consent?" 2. "If the author had such a right originally, did the law take it away, upon his printing and publishing such book or literary composition; and might any person afterwards reprint and sell, for his own benefit, such book or literary composition, against the will of the author?" 3. "If such action wo...

Part 2, Chapter 6, Section 3
SECTION III. Review of the Case of Millar vs. Taylor. The question of an author's copyright at Common Law, first came to a decision by the court of King's Bench in 1769, in the case of Millar vs. Taylor. Three of the Justices, Willes, Aston, and Lord Mansfield, decided in favor of the right; one, Justice Yates, opposed it. Each of the judges gave a written argument on the question. The want of unanimity in the court, and the inconsistency and deficiency of the arguments of the three Justices in favor of the right, have prevented their decision from being received as a settlement of the question; and there has probably been nearly or quite as much doubt on the point, among lawyers, since that decision as before. The Justices argued the question, both on precedent, and as an abstract one of natural, or common law. The precedents were from the court of chancery; and the most of them were en...

Part 2, Chapter 6, Section 2
SECTION II. Why the Common Law Right of Property in Ideas has not been more fully Acknowledged. It will, I think, be hereafter rationally shown, that the nonestablishment, in England, of the right of property in ideas, is to be attributed solely to the overthrow of the ancient, constitutional, Common Law government, and to the establishment of arbitrary power in its stead. But to understand how such a cause has been productive of such an effect, we must attend somewhat to events and dates. The Great Charter—which was at once the embodiment and guarantee of the Common Law form of government, and which, within about two hundred years from the grant of it in 1215, was confirmed more than thirty times, was confirmed for the last time in 1415. It had been much encroached upon before; but from this time the government degenerated rapidly into absolutism. And such has now been its character for some four hundred...

Part 2, Chapter 6, Section 1
PART II THE COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND. (VOL. I) CHAPTER VI. THE COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND RELATIVE TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. SECTION I. What is the Common Law of England? In order to determine whether the Common Law of England sustains the right of authors and inventors to an absolute and perpetual property in their ideas, it is only necessary to determine what the Common Law of England really is. To many unprofessional readers, the term Common Law will convey no very certain or precise idea; and as I am anxious that they should fully understand this discussion, at every step, I shall define the term more at length than would otherwise be necessary. The Common Law of England, then, with a few exceptions, which are wholly immaterial to the question of intellectual property, consists of, and is identical with, the simple princip...

Part 1, Chapter 5
CHAPTER V. THE POLICY OF PERPETUITY IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. As a matter of public policy, the expediency of allowing a man a perpetual property in his ideas, is as clear as is that of allowing him a perpetual property in material things. What is the argument of policy against a perpetual property in ideas? Principally this—that the world will get ideas cheaper, if they get them for nothing, than if they pay for them. This argument would be just as good in favor of abolishing the right of property in the material products of men's labor, as it is for abolishing it in intellectual ones. Take wheat, for example. If the right of property in wheat were abolished, the world would get the stock of wheat, that is now on hand, for nothing. But the next crop of wheat would be a small one; and people would then learn, that in the long run, the cheapest mode, and the only mode, of procuring a consta...

SECTION XV. Objection Fifteenth. Another objection is, that ideas cannot be seized, on any legal process. Admitting, for the sake of the argument, what is probably true, that no way can be devised, by which a man's property, in ideas, can be taken on legal process, that fact interposes no obstacle whatever to their being treated, by the law, as property. There are many kinds of property, which the law protects, but which, nevertheless, the law cannot seize. For example. Reputation is property, and is protected by the law; yet it cannot be seized and sold, to pay a fine, or satisfy a debt. A man's health, strength, and beauty are property; and the law punishes an injury done to them; yet they cannot be seized and sold, on legal process. All ...

Part I: The Law of Intellectual Property. Chapter I.: The Law of Nature In Regard to Intellectual Property. Section I.: The Right of Property In Ideas to Be Proved By Analogy. Section II.: What Is Wealth? Section III.: What Is Property? Section IV.: What Is the Right of Property? Section V.: What Things Are Subjects of Property? Section VI.: How Is the Right of Property Acquired. Section VII.: What Is the Foundation of the Right of Property? Section VIII.: How Is the Right of Property Transferred? Section IX.: Conclusions From the Preceding Principles. Chapter II.: Objections Answered. Section I.: Objection First. Section II.: Objection Second. Section III.: Objection Third. Section IV.: Objection Fourth.

SECTION VIII. Objection Eighth. It may be urged that, however just may be the principle of the right of property in ideas, still the difficulty of determining who is the true author of an invention, or idea, after that invention or idea has become extensively known to mankind, interposes a practical obstacle to the maintenance of any individual right of property in any thing so subtle, intangible, and widely diffused, as such an invention, or idea. This was unquestionably a very weighty and serious objection, in ruder times, when letters were unknown to the mass of the people, and when a thought was carried from mind to mind, unaccompanied by any reliable proof of the first originator. The facilities and inducements thus afforded to fraudul...

SECTION V. What Things are Subjects of Property? Every conceivable thing, whether intellectual, moral, or material, of which the mind can take cognizance, and which can be possessed, held, used, controlled, and enjoyed, by one person, and not, at the same instant of time, by another person, is rightfully a subject of property. All the wealth, that has before been described—that is, all the things, intellectual, moral, emotional, or material, that can contribute to, or constitute, the happiness or well-being of man; and that can be possessed by one man, and not at the same time by another, is rightfully a subject of property—that is, of individual ownership, control, dominion, use, and enjoyment. The air, that a man inhales, is h...

SECTION VII. Objection Seventh. It is said that two men sometimes make the same invention; and that it would therefore be wrong to give the whole invention to one. The answer to this objection is, that the fact that two men produce the same invention, is a very good reason why the invention should belong to both; but it is no reason at all why both should be deprived of it. If two men produce the same invention, each has an equal right to it; because each has an equal right to the fruits of his labor. Neither can deny the right of the other, without denying also his own. The consequence is, that they must either use and sell the invention in competition with each other, or unite their rights, and share the invention between them. These are ...