第84章

But，indeed，Mr。Martinhadbeforeusedthestrapofleather。

ThescrewofArchimedesisasancient，atleast，astheageofthatmathematician，whodiedmorethan2，000yearsago。DiodorusSiculusspeaksofit，L。i。，p。21，andL。v。，p。217，ofStevens’

editionof1559，folio；andVitruvius，xii。Thecuttingofitsspiralwormintosectionsforconveyingflourorgrain，seemstohavebeenaninventionofMr。Evans，andtobeafairsubjectofapatentright。ButitcannottakeawayfromotherstheuseofArchimedes’

screwwithitsperpetualspiral，foranypurposesofwhichitissusceptible。

Thehopper-boyisanusefulmachine，andsofarasIknow，original。

Ithasbeenpretendedbysome，(andinEnglandespecially，)

thatinventorshaveanaturalandexclusiverighttotheirinventions，andnotmerelyfortheirownlives，butinheritabletotheirheirs。Butwhileitisamootquestionwhethertheoriginofanykindofpropertyisderivedfromnatureatall，itwouldbesingulartoadmitanaturalandevenanhereditaryrighttoinventors。Itisagreedbythosewhohaveseriouslyconsideredthesubject，thatnoindividualhas，ofnaturalright，aseparatepropertyinanacreofland，forinstance。Byanuniversallaw，indeed，whatever，whetherfixedormovable，belongstoallmenequallyandincommon，isthepropertyforthemomentofhimwhooccupiesit；butwhenherelinquishestheoccupation，thepropertygoeswithit。Stableownershipisthegiftofsociallaw，andisgivenlateintheprogressofsociety。Itwouldbecuriousthen，ifanidea，thefugitivefermentationofanindividualbrain，could，ofnaturalright，beclaimedinexclusiveandstableproperty。Ifnaturehasmadeanyonethinglesssusceptiblethanallothersofexclusiveproperty，itistheactionofthethinkingpowercalledanidea，whichanindividualmayexclusivelypossessaslongashekeepsittohimself；butthemomentitisdivulged，itforcesitselfintothepossessionofeveryone，andthereceivercannotdispossesshimselfofit。Itspeculiarcharacter，too，isthatnoonepossessestheless，becauseeveryotherpossessesthewholeofit。Hewhoreceivesanideafromme，receivesinstructionhimselfwithoutlesseningmine；ashewholightshistaperatmine，receiveslightwithoutdarkeningme。Thatideasshouldfreelyspreadfromonetoanotherovertheglobe，forthemoralandmutualinstructionofman，andimprovementofhiscondition，seemstohavebeenpeculiarlyandbenevolentlydesignedbynature，whenshemadethem，likefire，expansibleoverallspace，withoutlesseningtheirdensityinanypoint，andliketheairinwhichwebreathe，move，andhaveourphysicalbeing，incapableofconfinementorexclusiveappropriation。

Inventionsthencannot，innature，beasubjectofproperty。Societymaygiveanexclusiverighttotheprofitsarisingfromthem，asanencouragementtomentopursueideaswhichmayproduceutility，butthismayormaynotbedone，accordingtothewillandconvenienceofthesociety，withoutclaimorcomplaintfromanybody。Accordingly，itisafact，asfarasIaminformed，thatEnglandwas，untilwecopiedher，theonlycountryonearthwhichever，byagenerallaw，gavealegalrighttotheexclusiveuseofanidea。Insomeothercountriesitissometimesdone，inagreatcase，andbyaspecialandpersonalact，but，generallyspeaking，othernationshavethoughtthatthesemonopoliesproducemoreembarrassmentthanadvantagetosociety；anditmaybeobservedthatthenationswhichrefusemonopoliesofinvention，areasfruitfulasEnglandinnewandusefuldevices。

Consideringtheexclusiverighttoinventionasgivennotofnaturalright，butforthebenefitofsociety，Iknowwellthedifficultyofdrawingalinebetweenthethingswhichareworthtothepublictheembarrassmentofanexclusivepatent，andthosewhicharenot。Asamemberofthepatentboardforseveralyears，whilethelawauthorizedaboardtograntorrefusepatents，Isawwithwhatslowprogressasystemofgeneralrulescouldbematured。Some，however，wereestablishedbythatboard。Oneofthesewas，thatamachineofwhichwewerepossessed，mightbeappliedbyeverymantoanyuseofwhichitissusceptible，andthatthisrightoughtnottobetakenfromhimandgiventoamonopolist，becausethefirstperhapshadoccasionsotoapplyit。Thusascrewforcrushingplastermightbeemployedforcrushingcorn-cobs。Andachain-pumpforraisingwatermightbeusedforraisingwheat：thisbeingmerelyachangeofapplication。Anotherrulewasthatachangeofmaterialshouldnotgivetitletoapatent。Asthemakingaploughshareofcastratherthanofwroughtiron；acombofironinsteadofhornorofivory，ortheconnectingbucketsbyabandofleatherratherthanofhemporiron。Athirdwasthatamerechangeofformshouldgivenorighttoapatent，asahigh-quarteredshoeinsteadofalowone；

aroundhatinsteadofathree-square；orasquarebucketinsteadofaroundone。Butforthisrule，allthechangesoffashionindresswouldhavebeenunderthetaxofpatentees。Thesewereamongtheruleswhichtheuniformdecisionsoftheboardhadalreadyestablished，andundereachofthemMr。Evans’patentwouldhavebeenrefused。First，becauseitwasamerechangeofapplicationofthechain-pump，fromraisingwatertoraisewheat。Secondly，becausetheusingaleatherninsteadofahempenband，wasamerechangeofmaterial；andthirdly，squarebucketsinsteadofround，areonlyachangeofform，andtheancientforms，too，appeartohavebeenindifferentlysquareorround。Buttherewerestillabundanceofcaseswhichcouldnotbebroughtunderrule，untiltheyshouldhavepresentedthemselvesunderalltheiraspects；andtheseinvestigationsoccupyingmoretimeofthemembersoftheboardthantheycouldsparefromhigherduties，thewholewasturnedovertothejudiciary，tobematuredintoasystem，underwhicheveryonemightknowwhenhisactionsweresafeandlawful。Insteadofrefusingapatentinthefirstinstance，astheboardwasauthorizedtodo，thepatentnowissuesofcourse，subjecttobedeclaredvoidonsuchprinciplesasshouldbeestablishedbythecourtsoflaw。Thisbusiness，however，isbutlittleanalogoustotheircourseofreading，sincewemightinvainturnoverallthelubberlyvolumesofthelawtofindasingleraywhichwouldlightenthepathofthemechanicorthemathematician。Itismorewithintheinformationofaboardofacademicalprofessors，andapreviousrefusalofpatentwouldbetterguardourcitizensagainstharrassmentbylaw-suits。

ButEnglandhadgivenittoherjudges，andtheusualpredominancyofherexamplescarriedittoours。

IthappenedthatIhadmyselfamillbuiltintheintervalbetweenMr。Evans’firstandsecondpatents。IwaslivinginWashington，andlefttheconstructiontothemill-wright。Ididnotevenknowhehaderectedelevators，conveye