creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Phyllis Schlafly
Phyllis Schlafly
16 Dec 2014
Feds Banish Sex Stereotypes in Classrooms

The Obama administration is now trying to outlaw single-sex classrooms, a practice that has been growing as … Read More.

9 Dec 2014
The High Cost of Fast Track

Obama received a thundering rejection to his attempt to make the November Congressional election a referendum … Read More.

2 Dec 2014
The High Cost of Obama's Executive Amnesty

Barack Obama has announced the particulars of his executive amnesty for an estimated five million of the many … Read More.

The Patent Bill is Unconstitutional

Comment

The biggest issue for many new members of Congress and tea partiers is trying to hold the federal government within its constitutional limits. Unfortunately, the House now seems poised to pass a law in direct violation of the Constitution.

One of the most valuable individual rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution is the right of "inventors" to own "the exclusive right" to their "discoveries" for "limited times." This right was set forth in Article I, Section 8, years before the rights to freedom of speech and religion were added.

This right is recognized and reinforced by our system of granting patents to inventors, so they will be able to protect their exclusive ownership for a limited number of years, after which the invention goes into the public domain. U.S. patents are awarded to the "first-to-invent" a new and useful product.

Our system perfectly implements the stated purpose of the constitutional provision "to promote the progress of science" because, as James Madison explained in Federalist No. 43, it serves both individual property rights and the public good. The U.S. patent system was unique when the Constitution was written and is still unique in the world today.

Many important inventors have attested that they would not have had the incentive to labor for years creating their invention were it not that our system offers hope that its profits would enable them to achieve the American dream. Our patent system, which protects the property right of the inventor, is why the United States has produced most of the world's great inventions and dominates the world in innovation.

All other countries award patents under an alien system called "first-to-file," i.e., the first person to file a paper with a government office. Foreign and powerful financial interests are now haranguing us to make us believe that the new dogma of globalism demands that we "harmonize" our patent system with the rest of the world by changing from first-to-invent to first-to-file.

A bill to do this (S.23) already passed the Senate after a quickie hearing that did not include a single inventor, a small business person, a venture capital person or a constitutional authority. It's now being pushed without any publicity in the House as H.R. 1249.

But harmonization makes no sense. Why would we abandon the proven best system that has worked successfully for more than two centuries and replace it with a proven inferior system?

More importantly, this patent bill must be rejected because it is flat-out unconstitutional.

The Constitution plainly states that the property right belongs to "inventors," not to someone handing a piece of paper to a government bureaucrat.

Seven scholarly law review articles have examined this issue and concluded that first-to-file is unconstitutional. No scholarly review proves otherwise.

Grass-rooters and tea partiers must not let Congress flout the Constitution by redefining the word "inventors" to be mean paper filers. The Constitution's framers and the early Congresses (which included many men who had been members of the Constitutional Convention) were very clear that first-to-invent is the meaning of the word "inventors."

First-to-invent is in conformity with tradition and history, as well as consistent with originalist, strict constructionist and textualist views of the Constitution. More than 200 years of statutes and jurisprudence confirm the first-to-invent standard.

The Patent Acts of 1790 and 1793 legislated that the patent must be awarded to "the first and true inventor." The Patent Act of 1836 used the language "original and true inventor" and "original and first inventor."

In Evans v. Jordan (1815), Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that the Constitution guarantees the "exclusive" right "to the inventor from the moment of invention." In Shaw v. Cooper (1833), the Supreme Court upheld the law that vested "the exclusive right in the inventor only."

Now, the liberals are circulating the un-American notion that we should utilize treaties and foreign laws to reinterpret our Constitution and statutes. They want Congress to use its treaty power or its Commerce Clause power to override the inventor's clause, overturn over 200 years of settled and successful law, and put us on the road to a borderless patent system.

First-to-file would elevate paperwork over true inventions, dilute the quality of patents because applications would be rushed to be filed, and cede sovereignty on the direction of our own patent system. First-to-file favors foreign inventors and big corporations that have the lawyers and resources to file quickly and redundantly, while taking rights away from independent inventors and small businesses.

No matter what arguments of policy or efficiency are made by first-to-file supporters, we cannot let them violate or ignore the Constitution. Tell your congressman to vote no on the patent bill.

Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and author of 20 books. Her latest, written with co-author Suzanne Venker, is "The Flipside of Feminism" published in March by WorldNetDaily. She can be contacted by e-mail at phyllis@eagleforum.org. To find out more about Phyllis Schlafly and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM.



Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
I find myself again pleasantly surprised to find a rational argument being presented by Mrs. Schlafly. She is indeed correct that this bill should be blocked. This is simply wrong.
Speaking of simply wrong; Mrs. Schlafly seems to be unable to resist distorting reality to pander to the right. Notice that in her world, once again, all that is wrong is the fault of "liberals". Mrs. Schlafly, this bill was sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas and was passed out of committee by a vote of 33 to 3 and the majority of that committee are republicans. Rep. Smith had the power to call any witness he choose. If you insist on being blind to the evil done by your own party you will be unable to guide them to rational decisions that ignore the wishes of their corporate masters. This bill is not the product of liberal or conservative thinking. It is the result of corporate ownership of congress. Mrs. Schlafly, please have the integrity to call out both parties on this one and, most especially, Rep. Smith, R Texas.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Mark
Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:28 PM
Mrs. Schafly , I'm sure is aware of the Republican source of this bill and knowing it is wronheaded and progressive has come out against it regardless of who supports it .
Comment: #2
Posted by: Buck Crosby
Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:14 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Phyllis Schlafly
Dec. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
30 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Joe Conason
Joe ConasonUpdated 19 Dec 2014
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 18 Dec 2014
Deb Saunders
Debra J. SaundersUpdated 18 Dec 2014

1 Sep 2009 Un-American and Unlawful White House Projects

19 Jul 2011 Time to Say Goodbye to the WTO

16 Feb 2010 The Problem Is Government Unions