4 Twelve of the thirteen states (in 1783-1786) enacted such statutes. 3 In 1783, the Continental Congress had passed a resolution recommending that the several states enact legislation to 'secure' to authors the 'copyright' of their books. The pre-revolutionary English statutes had made the distinction.
But the very language of the Constitution differentiates (a) 'authors' and their 'writings' from (b) 'inventors' and their 'discoveries.' Those who penned the Constitution, 2 of course, knew the difference. As several sections of the Copyright Act- e.g., those authorizing copyrights of 'reproductions of works of art,' maps, and compilations- plainly dispense with any such high standard, defendants are, in effect, attacking the constitutionality of those sections. On this basis, pointing to the Supreme Court's consequent requirement that, to be valid, a patent must disclose a high degree of uniqueness, ingenuity and inventiveness, the defendants assert that the same requirement constitutionally governs copyrights. 1 In passing on the validity of patents, the Supreme Court recurrently insists that this constitutional provision governs. Congressional power to authorize both patents and copyrights is contained in Article 1, Sec.
