The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Note.
• Part I: The Law of Intellectual Property.
• Chapter I.: The Law of Nature In Regard to Intellectual Property.
• Section I.: The Right of Property In Ideas to Be Proved By Analogy.
• Section II.: What Is Wealth?
• Section III.: What Is Property?
• Section IV.: What Is the Right of Property?
• Section V.: What Things Are Subjects of Property?
• Section VI.: How Is the Right of Property Acquired.
• Section VII.: What Is the Foundation of the Right of Property?
• Section VIII.: How Is the Right of Property Transferred?
• Section IX.: Conclusions From the Preceding Principles.
• Chapter II.: Objections Answered.
• Section I.: Objection First.
• Section II.: Objection Second.
• Section III.: Objection Third.
• Section IV.: Objection Fourth.
• Section V.: Objection Fifth.
• Section VI.: Objection Sixth.
• Section VII.: Objection Seventh.
• Section VIII.: Objection Eighth.
• Section IX.: Objection Ninth.
• Section X.: Objection Tenth.
• Section XI.: Objection Eleventh.
• Section XII.: Objection Twelfth.
• Section XIII.: Objection Thirteenth.
• Section XIV.: Objection Fourteenth.
• Section XV.: Objection Fifteenth.
• Chapter III.: Perpetuity and Descent of Intellectual Property.
• Section I.: Perpetuity of Intellectual Property.
• Section II.: Descent of Intellectual Property.
• Chapter IV.: The Sale of Ideas.
• Chapter V.: The Policy of Perpetuity In Intellectual Property.
• Part II: The Common Law of England. (vol. I)
• Chapter VI.: The Common Law of England Relative to Intellectual Property.
• Section I.: What Is the Common Law of England?
• Section II.: Why the Common Law Right of Property In Ideas Has Not Been More Fully Acknowledged.
• Section III.: Review of the Case of Millar Vs. Taylor.
• Section IV.: Review of the Case of Donaldson and Another, Vs. Becket and Another.

SECTION VII.

Objection Seventh.

It is said that two men sometimes make the same invention; and that it would therefore be wrong to give the whole invention to one.

The answer to this objection is, that the fact that two men produce the same invention, is a very good reason why the invention should belong to both; but it is no reason at all why both should be deprived of it.

If two men produce the same invention, each has an equal right to it; because each has an equal right to the fruits of his labor. Neither can deny the right of the other, without denying also his own. The consequence is, that they must either use and sell the invention in competition with each other, or unite their rights, and share the invention between them. These are the only alternatives, which their relations to each other admit of. And it is for the parties themselves, and not for the government, to determine which of these alternatives they will elect. Each holds the whole invention by the same title—that of having produced it by his labor. Neither can say that the title of the other is defective, or in any way imperfect. Neither party has any right, therefore, to object to the other’s using or selling the invention at discretion. And each, therefore, can lawfully and freely use and sell the invention, (and give a good title to the purchaser,) without any liability to answer to the other as an infringer. In short, the parties stand in the relation of competitors to each other; each having an equal and perfect right to use and sell the invention, in competition with, and in defiance of, the other. But as such competition would probably not be so profitable to either of the parties, as a union of their competing rights, such a union would doubtless generally be agreed upon by the parties themselves, without any interference from the government.