It has been pretended by some that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured.

that Bank of America and Citigroup would fail without a massive injection of money from the fed.

Look. There’s a hard truth here that I know is hard to understand if you’ve drunk the Kool Aid that government is always the problem and has no place in managing the economy, but the logical extension of the argument you pursue has brought not only the U.S. economy, but the world economy, to the brink of depression.

“competiton” “regulation” “socialism” “free market” “market forces” — all of these are just phrases. The path the United States has pursued, the laissez faire path, has not worked. In the strongest economy. Which means it just. doesn’t. Fucking. Work.

Without getting all ooggity boogity ooh it’s socialism on your ass, the USA right now is in the midst of approving a bailout bill that MOOTS all arguments about government support and “free competition.”

There are plenty of economies — including Canada — that have opted for a managed path that was still capitalist, but less unfettered. Canada’s banks will not fail. They do not hold bullshit mortgages. You know why?

Because someone saw that something other than “competition” was going to be more effective.

If you want to make arguments about broadcast policy or internet policy, that’s great. But SHIT HAS CHANGED in the last few months. People expect, and need, more than the bullshit orthodoxies of “let the market decide.”

Again, and that’s with the Yankee economy. The largest in the world.

It’s okay if you don’t understand the ins and outs of an economy that’s not the United States. But seriously, dude, stop with the fucking platitudes and bullshit like “explain how competiton is predatory.”

Or don’t. But I’ll tell you what. Before I explain the answer to that question, answer mine: “how is it that the United States, which always knows better, is driving the economy of the world into depression?”