Samuel Morse, inventor of the telegraph, brought a patent infringement law suit against Henry O’Reilly. O’Reilly had taken the idea of the telegraph and sought to improve its ability to communicate over long distances. Morse argued this was an infringement because it pirated his idea of communicating with electro-magnetism. Use the excerpt from the case’s Supreme Court decision written by Chief Justice Taney to answer the question. “...The claim of the patentee is that he may be protected in the exercise of his art as against persons who may improve or change some of the processes or machines necessary in its exercise. The court, by deciding that this claim is too broad, virtually decides that such an inventor of an improvement may pirate the art he improves, because it is contrary to public policy to restrain the progress of invention. Or in other words it may be said that it is the policy of the courts to refuse that protection to an art which it affords to a machine, which it is the policy of the Constitution and the laws to grant....” Which argument best supports Chief Justice Taney’s decision? (1 point) Responses People have natural rights, which include the right to pursue your economic dream without fear of government oppression or theft by others. People have natural rights, which include the right to pursue your economic dream without fear of government oppression or theft by others. Society benefits more from the intellectual pursuits of the individual and must seek ways to reward the inventors. Society benefits more from the intellectual pursuits of the individual and must seek ways to reward the inventors. A patent, issued for twenty years, provides the long lead times required for research and development. A patent, issued for twenty years, provides the long lead times required for research and development. If a person has locked the intellectual property rights of an idea or an invention, others are precluded from taking that idea and potentially improving it.

Answer 1

The argument that best supports Chief Justice Taney’s decision is: Society benefits more from the intellectual pursuits of the individual and must seek ways to reward the inventors.

This argument aligns with Taney's reasoning that overly broad patent claims could hinder the progress of invention, as it would unjustly restrict improvements and innovations that benefit society as a whole. By focusing on the balance between protecting inventors and promoting further advancement, it highlights the importance of encouraging ongoing intellectual contributions rather than restricting them.