Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T12:04:24.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “Patent” Way to Balance the National Budget

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Forrest R. Black
Forrest R. Black
Affiliation:
Washington, D. C.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In these times, when governmental costs are mounting and to many it seems impossible to balance the national budget, all sorts of bizarre proposals are being made to raise additional revenue. They run the gamut from a national governmental lottery, through various modes of inflation, via the printing-press route and all points rightward, to excessive forms of graduated taxes, which may kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. The importance of Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the Constitution of the United States as an untapped source of untold revenue has been overlooked. The constitutional provision reads: “The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

Type
American Government and Politics
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 29 , Issue 5 , October 1935 , pp. 830 - 837
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1935

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 48 Corpus Juris 15.

2 Bird v. Elaborating Roofing Company, 256 Fed. 366, 167 C.C.A. 536, certiorari dismissed, 250 U.S. 647.

3 Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S. 313; 34 L. Ed. 455.

4 White Company v. Converse, 20 Fed. (2d) 311.

5 Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minn. Moline Plow Co., 235 U.S. 641; 59 L. Ed. 398.

6 Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U.S. 501, 24 L. Ed. 1115 (1878).

7 Lane, H. C., “Extension of Patents,” Journal of the Patent Office Society (1926), p. 537Google Scholar.

8 E. Bement & Sons v. National Harrow Co., 186 U.S. 70.

9 Curtis, , Constitutional History, 340Google Scholar; 2 Watson on the Constitution (1910), 660Google Scholar; 17 Geo. L. Rev., 109, 114Google Scholar.

10 Diamond Rubber Co. v. Consolidated Rubber Co., 220 U.S. 438 (1921).

11 Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wallace 533; McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27.

12 Kendall v. Windsor, 21 Howard 322, 328, 16 L. Ed. 165.

13 Act of April 30, 1928, amending act of March 3, 1863 (U.S.C., title 35, sec. 45).

14 Bird v. Elaborating Roofing Co., supra, note 2.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.