In both 2301 and 2302 we touched on Article I of the Constitution and the delegated power Congress has:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
This authorizes Congress to pass Patent Laws, which it first did in 1790 when it created the Patent Office. The power is based on the idea that allowing people monopoly control over their ideas and the products of those ideas encourages innovation. That this control is time-limited allows the idea to enter into the public domain and spur additional innovation. But not everything can be patented.
NPR reports on a controversy involving fashion designers and their efforts to obtain the right to patent their designs. Design has historically been considered a craft and not subject to patents. Designers wouldlike to have the ability to profit from their creations -- they are commonly, easily, and often copied.
Patent lawyers certainly would be interested in gaining the opportunity to ply their trade tracking down copycats. While listening to the story, it occurred to me that if designs were patented it would be crucial how the term "design" was defined. Imagine creating an ensemble off the cuff one morning and while walking in a public place you were informed that what you were wearing violated a designers patent rights. Could you argue that you had a right to wear what you wished and that this right superseded the designer's patent rights? There is no right to fashion in the Constitution -- you'd probably have to argue self-expression, but that involves a loose interpretation of the free speech clause.
This might not be a proper example, but limits on who could wear what are not novel in history.
