US constitution vs patents

Posted Jul 3, 2009 3:19 UTC (Fri) by njs (subscriber, #40338)
In reply to: US constitution vs patents by pjm
Parent article: VFAT patent avoidance and patent workarounds

I believe you're thinking of Eldred v. Ashcroft. The US Congress certainly *does* need authorization from the Constitution to pass laws; that's one of the basic principles of US law. (The Constitution basically says "here's a list of things Congress can pass laws about, here's a list of things that no-one can pass laws about (regulating speech, etc.), everything not mentioned here the states can do whatever they want with.")

IIRC, the Supreme Court wriggled out of the Constitution's language about copyright being "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" by saying that it was complicated to say exactly whether progress was hurt or helped by copyright extension, and so they would leave that up to the legislature, who has more resources to figure out tricky questions of this sort. Kind of lame.