“To this, however, or to any other system which would vest in the State—”
Why the State? Why not let inventors decide?
“the power of deciding whether an inventor should derive any pecuniary advantage for the public benefit which he confers, the objections are evidently [!] stronger and more fundamental than the strongest which can possibly be urged against Patents. It is generally admitted that the present Patent-Laws need much improvement.”
It is not admitted that they can be made satisfactory, do what we will; and I contend that no extent of mere improvement can overcome the objectionableness of the restraints and burdens inseparable from the system.
“But in this case, as well as in the closely analogous one of Copyright, it would be a gross immorality in the law to set everybody free”—
Why, everybody is naturally free, and would continue free if the law did not step in and cruelly take their freedom away, doing which is the real immorality.
“to use a person’s work”—
A fallacy—to use, it may be, his thoughts, which, as soon as they are communicated, are no longer his only—and not at all to use his “work” in any proper sense.
“without his consent, and without giving him an equivalent.”