Why Creativity Needs Ownership: James Edwards on the Biblical Roots of IP & the Future of Patents

by Stephan Kinsella on September 9, 2025

I’ve discussed before the error of libertarian or Lockean “creationism” that underlies one of the main arguments for intellectual property. See:

The Problem with Intellectual Property (Papinian Press Working Paper #2), Part III.A
Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023)
- ch. 14, Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society, Part III.B
- ch. 15, Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward, Part IV.C
Libertarian Creationism
Succinct Criticism of Utilitarianism and Libertarian Creationism.
Libertarian and Lockean Creationism: Creation As a Source of Wealth, not Property Rights; Hayek’s “Fund of Experience”; the Distinction Between Scarce Means and Knowledge as Guides to Action
KOL012 | “The Intellectual Property Quagmire, or, The Perils of Libertarian Creationism,” Austrian Scholars Conference 2008
“Objectivist Law Prof Mossoff on Copyright; or, the Misuse of Labor, Value, and Creation Metaphors,” Mises Economics Blog (April 19, 2011)
Locke on IP; Mises, Rothbard, and Rand on Creation, Production, and ‘Rearranging’, C4SIF (Sep. 29, 2010) (with links to Mises version)
Masnick: Creation Does Not Equal Ownership, Techdirt (Dec. 2, 2008)

Now there is a new book out which is extremely explicit in promoting this theory: James R. Edwards, To Invent Is Divine: Creativity and Ownership (Fidelis Publishing, 2025). It is discussed in a recent Clause8 podcast episode: “Why Creativity Needs Ownership: James Edwards on the Biblical Roots of IP & the Future of Patents.”

From the podcast episode’s shownotes:

In To Invent Is Divine: Creativity and Ownership, Jim makes the case that creativity and ownership are inseparable—and that weakening intellectual property rights threatens the flourishing that invention enables. He draws connections between faith, history, and policy to explore why protecting intellectual property is about more than law or economics.

Highlights from our conversation:

* From Genesis to Jefferson: How creation implies ownership, and why even some Founders wrestled with protecting that principle in law.

* Cycles of Patent Strength and Weakness: Why America’s “golden age” of inventors gave way to Progressive Era restraints—and how history may be repeating itself.

* Policy at the Crossroads: Jim breaks down three bipartisan bills—PARA, PREVAIL, and RESTORE—and what it will take to get them passed.

* Leadership at the USPTO: Why Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart has already made an impact, and Jim perspective on the incoming Director John Squires and the path that he should follow.

* Bipartisanship Matters: From his work with Eagle Forum, Jim explains why protecting patents requires coalition-building across party lines.

Why it matters

Creativity without ownership can lead to secrecy, stagnation, and scarcity. When the two are combined, society benefits from innovation and progress. Jim’s perspective offers both philosophical and practical insight into the patent debates shaping America’s innovation future.

Chapters

00:00 – Introduction
01:50 – What inspired you to write this book?
06:20 – Why include inventor stories like Qualcomm?
10:10 – Why does ownership matter for creativity to flourish?
16:00 – How do Bible passages relate to patent law?
20:00 – Founders’ views on IP: What did they really think?
24:00 – What caused America’s “Golden Age” of patents?
30:00 – Are we repeating history with weakening patent rights?
34:00 – Why don’t all conservatives support strong patent rights?
40:00 – Why is Eagle Forum’s IP dinner bipartisan?
44:30 – Status of the PREVAIL, PARA, and RESTORE Acts?
55:00 – Final message to Congress about patents & human flourishing

***

Edwards’s book is not important enough to be pirated yet, so I can’t find a PDF to feed for analysis into Grok, but below are the Youtube transcript and a summary from Grok. This episode makes it clear that his argument is totally confused and clueless, as all libertarian creationism arguments are, and indeed as all IP arguments are.¹ And it’s no surprise the book is endorsed by the usual IP shills: the tireless broken record and Objectivist Adam Mossoff who has yet to produce a coherent positive argument for IP rights (and even though he’s a presumably atheist Objectivist praising a biblical, Christian argument for IP!; as Hoppe said, “Funny how the Super Religious and the Randians get along.”); former patent law Judge Paul R. Michel;² and buffoon Gene Quinn.³ Also lavishing praise on the book are other usual suspects, including Thomas Massie, a libertarian-leaning but non-libertarian and pro-IP member of Congress⁴ and patent law professor Kristen Osenga.⁵ (It is possible Edwards is just a paid shill himself; he appears to have a lobbying firm, so perhaps some IP special interest group is using him to try to whip up support for stronger IP laws among American Christians?)

The argument is shoddy and clueless. He doesn’t cite any substantial criticism of IP, such as mine or Boldrin & Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly. He criticizes antitrust law—not because he opposes it; it makes it clear he doesn’t; around 30:00: “I’m not against antitrust laws, but I am against the wrongly applied enforcement of antitrust laws, and especially with respect to its crossing paths with invention and creativity.” So he is no libertarian and doesn’t understand property theory. He only offers a cursory handwave at Locke’s argument for homesteading unowned natural resources, which has nothing to do with creation. Instead he basically argues something like this: God created man and the world and the universe, so creation is good; and innovation and invention are good, so … patent law good.

This makes no sense. As for God: God (assuming arguendo He exists) did create the world—but He does not thereby claim ownership of us. (As Tom Bell writes, “Even birds recognize property rights in nests. They do not, however, copyright their songs.”)⁶ The idea is that He created us and then set us free and in fact wants us to be self-owners and to own (by homesteading) the unowned resources he left to us in the commons. Not only does God not claim ownership of us by virtue of creation, ownership would make no sense in the case of God. The very purpose of ownership and property rights is to provide normative support for possession and use of resources to prevent outsiders from stealing or using it without our consent. God is omnipotent and doens’t need the help of law or norms to prevent people from interfering with His property!⁷

So, nothing in his argument shows that creation is a source of ownership. First, men are not analogous to God and do not metaphysically create things. As even pro-IP Ayn Rand recognizes:

The power to rearrange the combinations of natural elements is the only creative power man possesses. It is an enormous and glorious power—and it is the only meaning of the concept “creative.” “Creation” does not (and metaphysically cannot) mean the power to bring something into existence out of nothing. “Creation” means the power to bring into existence an arrangement (or combination or integration) of natural elements that had not existed before.⁸

Second, even God does not claim ownership of his creation and treat us like his slaves, his property! So the “argument” is just sloppy, metaphorical nonsense. (And as I noted previously, “The fact that IP law gives the wielder a negative servitude over the property, and even bodies, of others, shows that IP can also resemble slavery.”⁹

As for invention and innovation: sure, they are good. In fact this is the reason for modern human prosperity and the main reason to oppose patent law!¹⁰ But saying innovation is good and “therefore” patent law is good is simply a question-begging assertion. It does not show that patent law is necessary for innovation or even that it leads to more innovation; in fact, it retards and hampers innovation.¹¹ Nor does it show that the purpose of law is to contort property rights and “incentives” to maximize innovation and to “patch” market failures like the “underproduction” of innovation.

Grade: F.

Grok Shownotes

Summary:

In this compelling episode of Clause 8, James Edwards articulates a profound connection between creativity, ownership, and human flourishing, as explored in his book To Invent Is Divine: Creativity and Ownership. Through a lens of biblical principles, historical context, and contemporary policy, Edwards argues that strong patent protections are essential to foster innovation and prevent the stagnation that arises from weak ownership rights. His discussion with host Eli Mazour spans the philosophical roots of IP, the historical cycles of America’s patent system, and the urgent need for bipartisan legislative reforms like the PERA, PREVAIL, and RESTORE Acts to address modern challenges, such as those posed by the America Invents Act and global competition with China.

Edwards’ insights, grounded in his work with the Eagle Forum and inspired by Phyllis Schlafly’s legacy, emphasize the bipartisan nature of patent advocacy and the critical role of USPTO leadership, particularly praising Acting Director Kathi Vidal’s reforms. His call to Congress underscores the necessity of secure, enforceable IP rights to ensure mass flourishing, a message reinforced by the book’s evocative cover inspired by Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel. This episode offers a rich blend of faith, history, and policy, urging listeners to recognize the enduring importance of protecting creativity to drive societal progress.

Detailed: Show Notes: Clause 8 Podcast with James Edwards

In this engaging episode of Clause 8, host Eli Mazour sits down with James Edwards, a patent policy advisor for the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund and author of To Invent Is Divine: Creativity and Ownership. Recorded in a brand-new studio with Edwards joining from Charleston, South Carolina, the conversation explores the deep connections between creativity, ownership, and intellectual property (IP) rights. Edwards draws on his extensive experience on Capitol Hill and his Christian faith to argue that strong patent protections are essential for human flourishing, rooted in both biblical principles and American history. The discussion spans the philosophical underpinnings of IP, historical cycles of patent policy, current legislative efforts, and the bipartisan nature of patent advocacy, offering listeners a rich blend of policy, history, and personal insight.

Introduction

0:00

Eli Mazour introduces the episode, highlighting Clause 8 as the leading podcast on intellectual property, trusted by top in-house counsel, judges, and policymakers worldwide. He welcomes James Edwards, noting their long-standing relationship forged through the Eagle Forum’s annual bipartisan pro-patent event on Capitol Hill, which Edwards organizes. Mazour shares his excitement about Edwards’ book, To Invent Is Divine: Creativity and Ownership, and praises its compelling cover, which visually ties into the book’s themes. He sets the stage by quoting the book’s opening, referencing Genesis: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” emphasizing that the act of creation implies ownership—a core argument of Edwards’ work. This interrelation of creativity and ownership, Edwards posits, applies not only to divine creation but also to human innovation, forming the foundation for the episode’s exploration of IP policy and its broader implications.

What Inspired You to Write This Book?

1:50

The Genesis of the Book

James Edwards explains that To Invent Is Divine originated from a speech he gave, inspired by his work with the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, where he serves as a patent policy advisor. A conversation with the organization’s Texas leader at a 2019 leadership conference sparked the idea, as she questioned why Eagle Forum prioritized patent issues among its many conservative causes. Edwards saw an opportunity to articulate the connection between creativity, ownership, and societal progress, leading to the book’s development. He aimed to create a work that is both a policy exploration and an accessible narrative, appealing to a broad audience including Christians, IP professionals, and inventors.

Phyllis Schlafly’s Influence

The discussion delves into the Eagle Forum’s unique focus on patents, rooted in the influence of its founder, Phyllis Schlafly. Edwards recounts how Schlafly, known for defeating the Equal Rights Amendment, was shaped by her father, an inventor who patented a rotary engine during the Depression. Though he couldn’t commercialize it due to World War II, his pride in the patent left a lasting impression on Schlafly. She championed inventors as “the best friend of women” for creating labor-saving devices, making patent policy a cornerstone of Eagle Forum’s mission. Edwards highlights Schlafly’s role as a pioneering conservative leader in advocating for IP, setting the stage for the organization’s annual Capitol Hill event.

Why Include Inventor Stories Like Qualcomm?

6:20

Celebrating Inventors’ Impact

Eli Mazour praises Edwards’ vivid descriptions of inventors in the book, particularly noting a story about the founder of Fairchild Semiconductor, whose collaboration with a patent attorney led to the invention of the integrated circuit—a breakthrough that revolutionized modern computing. Edwards explains that he included stories of inventors like Thomas Edison, Robert Noyce, Jack Kilby, and Qualcomm’s Susie Armstrong to make the book relatable and engaging. Armstrong’s innovation in enabling internet access on cell phones, for instance, has impacted billions of lives, illustrating the transformative power of invention.

Simplifying Complex Innovations

Mazour admires Edwards’ ability to distill complex inventions into simple, understandable terms, asking what this reveals about great innovations. Edwards emphasizes that these stories bridge the gap between technical complexity and public appreciation, showing how seemingly simple ideas—like combining materials in a novel way—require immense creativity and effort. He included these narratives to make the book approachable to diverse audiences, from Christians interested in technology to IP lawyers and inventors, ensuring it serves as both a policy discussion and an inspiring read grounded in real-world examples of human ingenuity.

Why Does Ownership Matter for Creativity to Flourish?

10:10

The Biblical Basis for Creativity and Ownership

Edwards argues that creativity and ownership are divine attributes shared with humans, as humans are made in God’s image. He cites the creation mandate in Genesis, where Adam and Eve were tasked with working and improving the Garden of Eden, suggesting that creativity was intrinsic to human purpose even before the Fall. However, Mazour notes a common misconception that work was a punishment post-Fall, to which Edwards counters that work became more strenuous after the Fall, but creativity itself was a pre-Fall gift. Ownership, he asserts, is equally critical, as tentative ownership stifles innovation by forcing creators to focus on protecting their work rather than advancing it.

The Equation for Human Flourishing

Edwards introduces his central thesis: “Creativity plus ownership equals human flourishing.” He explains that without secure ownership, as provided by strong patent rights, creators resort to trade secrets, which hinder knowledge sharing and societal progress. The Fall introduced degradation and risk to human creations, making ownership essential to combat the default state of poverty. By connecting creativity and ownership, Edwards argues that robust IP protections enable mass flourishing, a principle he sees as both biblically grounded and practically necessary for innovation-driven economies.

How Do Bible Passages Relate to Patent Law?

16:00

Contrasting Solomon and Chakrabarty

Mazour highlights Edwards’ juxtaposition of King Solomon’s statement, “There’s nothing new under the sun,” with the famous patent law quote from Diamond v. Chakrabarty that “anything under the sun that is made by man is patentable.” Edwards confirms this was intentional, noting that while God creates ex nihilo (from nothing), humans create by building on existing materials—a distinction that supports patentability. He argues that human innovation, though derived from God’s creation, deserves protection as a tangible manifestation of creativity, aligning with the legal framework established in Chakrabarty.

Addressing Hindsight Bias

The conversation addresses public skepticism about patents, where critics view inventions as “obvious” in hindsight. Edwards counters this with a quote from Wilbur Wright, who noted that the simplicity of the airplane’s design was only apparent after its creation, despite centuries of failed attempts at human flight. This hindsight bias, Edwards argues, undervalues the ingenuity required for breakthroughs. He emphasizes that patent law protects the novel and non-obvious, ensuring inventors can claim ownership without undermining the divine origin of creation, thus reinforcing the compatibility of biblical principles and IP law.

Founders’ Views on IP: What Did They Really Think?

20:00

Jefferson and Franklin’s Skepticism

Mazour notes that Edwards acknowledges the mixed views of the Founding Fathers, particularly Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, who were skeptical of strong IP rights. Edwards explains that Jefferson, the first U.S. patent examiner, did not view IP as a natural right, distinguishing it from physical property. This perspective aligns with some modern libertarians who question IP protections. However, Edwards contrasts this with James Madison and Charles Pinckney’s inclusion of the IP clause in the Constitution, emphasizing “new or useful” and “new or improved” as recognition of IP as legitimate property.

A Unique American Approach

The discussion highlights the uniqueness of America’s constitutional approach to patents, unlike European systems where monarchs granted patents as favors. Edwards attributes the Founders’ passion for including IP in the Constitution to the era’s biblical literacy, influenced by the Great Awakening revival led by figures like George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards. This cultural phenomenon fostered a society where even non-religious Founders were steeped in Judeo-Christian values, which Edwards argues informed their recognition of creativity and ownership as essential for progress, as enshrined in the Constitution.

What Caused America’s “Golden Age” of Patents?

24:00

The Patent Office as a Cultural Hub

Edwards describes America’s “golden age” of patents from the early 1800s to the early 20th century, catalyzed by the 1836 Patent Act, which formalized the patent system. The U.S. Patent Office, located in what is now a Smithsonian building in Washington, D.C.’s Chinatown, became a public attraction displaying patent models. Inventors like Thomas Edison and Samuel Morse were household names, celebrated for transformative inventions like the telegraph, which revolutionized communication. Edwards contrasts this with today’s distracted society, noting that the absence of modern distractions allowed greater public appreciation of inventors.

Shifting Cultural Perceptions

Mazour questions whether inventions were more valued in the past due to their tangible, understandable nature. Edwards suggests that while few people visited the Patent Office, widespread newspaper and magazine coverage spread awareness of inventions, fostering a culture that celebrated the act of inventing. He cites Samuel Morse’s depiction in the Capitol Dome’s frieze as evidence of inventors’ cultural significance, underscoring how their contributions were seen as directly improving lives, unlike modern perceptions often focused on corporate wealth or marketing.

Are We Repeating History with Weakening Patent Rights?

30:00

Progressive Era Challenges

Edwards draws parallels between the Progressive Era’s regulatory overreach and current trends in patent policy. He explains that early 20th-century antitrust laws, while necessary, were often misapplied, restricting inventors’ access to capital and favoring large, government-connected companies. Mandatory licensing and other requirements stifled innovation, particularly for small inventors from modest backgrounds who drove the golden age. Edwards cites scholar Jonathan Barnett’s work, which he references in the book, to highlight how these policies disadvantaged new entrants.

Modern Parallels

Today, Edwards sees a repeat of this cycle with weakened patent rights, driven by court decisions and legislation like the America Invents Act (AIA). He argues that these changes have emboldened large corporations to infringe patents, knowing legal protections are diminished. This environment discourages innovation by forcing inventors to focus on securing ownership rather than creating, echoing the Progressive Era’s stifling of the “little guy.” Edwards warns that without reform, the U.S. risks losing its innovation edge, particularly in competition with nations like China.

Why Don’t All Conservatives Support Strong Patent Rights?

34:00

The Patent Troll Narrative

Mazour notes that, despite Edwards’ arguments, some conservative Republicans on Capitol Hill are skeptical of strong patent rights, often citing concerns about “patent trolls.” Edwards attributes this to a narrative driven by large corporations that license patents, who view IP enforcement as a costly burden. He argues that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the rise of globalized business, particularly with China’s manufacturing boom, shifted corporate priorities toward weaker IP protections to reduce costs, influencing some conservative lawmakers.

A Misguided Perspective

Edwards expresses frustration that some conservatives fail to see the link between creativity, ownership, and flourishing, which he believes should align with conservative values. He acknowledges that the “patent troll” narrative contains some truth—there have been weak patents—but considers it a gross exaggeration. He urges greater skepticism of this narrative, emphasizing that strong patent rights are essential for innovation and economic growth, a view not all conservatives embrace due to corporate lobbying and global economic shifts.

Why Is Eagle Forum’s IP Dinner Bipartisan?

40:00

Phyllis Schlafly’s Legacy of Coalition-Building

Edwards explains the bipartisan nature of Eagle Forum’s annual IP dinner, modeled after Phyllis Schlafly’s politically astute approach. Schlafly understood that legislative success requires broad coalitions, as seen in their fight against the AIA, where they worked with liberal Democrats like John Conyers and Marcy Kaptur. Edwards emphasizes that patent policy transcends ideological divides, focusing on shared goals of innovation and progress, making bipartisanship essential for effective advocacy.

Lessons from Capitol Hill

Reflecting on his early years in Washington during the Reagan era, Edwards notes that bipartisan collaboration was a norm for legislating, a practice he seeks to emulate. He laments that some modern lawmakers overlook this, prioritizing partisan divisions over governance. The Eagle Forum’s dinner, by inviting both parties, fosters dialogue and builds coalitions to strengthen patent protections, a strategy Edwards sees as critical given the bipartisan support patents still enjoy.

Status of the PREVAIL, PERA, and RESTORE Acts?

44:30

Current Legislative Efforts

Edwards discusses three bipartisan bills aimed at addressing patent system challenges: the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), the PREVAIL Act, and the RESTORE Patent Rights Act. PERA seeks to clarify patent eligibility amid judicial uncertainty, PREVAIL aims to align PTAB rules with federal courts for greater fairness, and RESTORE addresses the eBay decision’s impact on injunctive relief, which has made it harder for patent owners to secure injunctions. Edwards is cautiously optimistic, noting significant progress early in the Congress but refraining from betting on passage.

Leadership and Challenges

The discussion highlights Senator Thom Tillis’ leadership on PERA and PREVAIL, alongside Democrat Senator Chris Coons, but Edwards acknowledges concerns about Tillis’ retirement. He believes other Republican senators, motivated by competition with China in critical technologies, will step up, though he avoids naming specific successors. Edwards also reflects on a narrow committee vote for PREVAIL, where Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley opposed it for different reasons, suggesting that strategic adjustments and maturing legislative perspectives could advance these bills.

USPTO Leadership

Mazour raises the impact of Acting USPTO Director Kathi Vidal, whom Edwards praises for her reforms, particularly on PTAB discretionary denials. He credits Vidal’s understanding of the AIA’s intent to ensure “quiet title” rather than endless patent challenges, countering efficient infringement. Edwards also acknowledges Robert Lighthizer’s support as a patent owner himself. He hopes incoming Director John Squires will continue Vidal’s reforms, emphasizing the need for sustained improvements to strengthen the patent system.

Final Message to Congress About Patents & Human Flourishing

55:00

A Call to Action

Edwards delivers a powerful final message to Congress: read To Invent Is Divine to understand why creativity and ownership are inseparable. He reiterates that secure property rights are essential for mass flourishing, warning that tentative ownership undermines innovation. He urges lawmakers to prioritize strong, reliable, and enforceable patent protections to ensure America’s innovation leadership.

The Book’s Broader Impact

Mazour expresses hope that Eagle Forum will distribute the book to Capitol Hill staff and interns to educate future legislators. He praises the book’s accessibility and its striking cover, inspired by Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel, symbolizing the divine spark of creativity. Edwards reinforces this metaphor, tying it to the book’s core argument that invention and ownership are divinely inspired principles that drive human progress. The episode concludes with Mazour thanking Edwards and looking forward to future discussions and Eagle Forum events.

Why It Matters

James Edwards’ To Invent Is Divine offers a compelling case for why creativity and ownership are intertwined, drawing on biblical, historical, and policy perspectives. The conversation reveals that weakening IP rights risks stifling innovation, encouraging secrecy, and hindering societal progress. By connecting faith, history, and modern policy challenges, Edwards provides a philosophical and practical framework for understanding the importance of patents. His insights, combined with his advocacy through Eagle Forum, underscore the need for bipartisan efforts to protect IP, ensuring that America remains a beacon of innovation and human flourishing.

Youtube Transcript

Introduction

0:00

Eli Mazour: Welcome to Clause 8, the number one podcast on intellectual property, trusted by top in-house counsel, judges, and policymakers worldwide. Hosted by Eli Mazour, we bring you in-depth conversations with the personalities shaping IP. Brought to you by TradeSpace, where ideas take flight.

Hi, Jim, great to have you on the Clause 8 podcast. We’re glad to start the season with you in our brand-new studio, and you’re in Charleston, South Carolina. Jim and I first met at the Eagle Forum. He’s a patent policy advisor for our organization, and I’ll let you tell more about it, but they host this bipartisan pro-patent event on Capitol Hill every year. Jim kind of runs the show, and it’s one of the best IP events, I think, in D.C. Very fun, and you meet all kinds of people. So that’s how Jim and I met, and I’ve got to talk to him a lot through the years about patent policy and all that. I wanted to have him on. But then this year, he told me he wrote a book. As you can see, it’s called To Invent Is Divine: Creativity and Ownership. Love this cover. I’ll let you tell more about it, but it kind of tells a story about this book and why he wrote it. But just to start out, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” The act of creation implies God’s ownership of that which He has created. That is, creativity and ownership are interrelated. This interrelation of creativity and ownership is true for God but also for human beings. So maybe we could start there. What can you tell us? You’ve been on

What Inspired You to Write This Book?

1:50

Capitol Hill, you’ve advocated on policy issues. What made you write this book, and what is your message?

James Edwards: Well, first, thank you for having me on Clause 8. It’s been a great show to listen to, and now to be on it is a privilege. So I appreciate that so much. The thing is, this book kind of started with a speech. As you said, I work with Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund on its patent issues as their advisor, but then also the event that you mentioned, the annual event that focuses on patents in some way, shape, or form, and this year it was centered around the book. The book came about because of working with Eagle Forum Education, their Texas leader, and I got to talking at a leadership conference of the organization back in early 2019. So she knew that we worked on patent issues and that that’s what I do for them. She was wondering why, and why we were involved in that issue, you know, as opposed to the many other issues they work on. So I just discussed that.

Eli Mazour: Yeah. And Jim, I think it helps to add, obviously, that the Eagle Forum is, I guess, it was started by Phyllis Schlafly or by her son. So I guess when it is a question that comes up, why is it one of the issues that Eagle Forum is focused on?

James Edwards: Yes, Phyllis Schlafly. I mean, she’s famously the leader of the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment, but on the other side of her life, she was raised by a man who was an inventor who got a patent. His patent was on his rotary engine. He worked on it during the Depression and ended up with a patent. Unfortunately, the timing was off, given World War II starting up, but he wasn’t able to commercialize it. However, he was proud of the patent, and that is an achievement in its own right. Phyllis watched him as she grew up as a girl. She observed her father working on that, trying to come up with something that was useful, novel, and not obvious. And so he did. And that impressed her. And then, as she got to the Equal Rights Amendment fight, she used patents and inventors as the heroes. She said the best friend of women is inventors. They create labor-saving devices that improve our lives incredibly. So it’s something that she led as a policy issue when she founded Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, and it was a policy group that engages on a bunch of conservative issues, but this was, to my knowledge, the only or first conservative movement-type leader to go in that issue direction.

Eli Mazour: Yeah. One of my, I guess, when I started reading this book, I expected you, obviously, to tell the story, which you shared with me, about how innovation, you know, that innovation is a good thing, that creativity, that IP rights are rooted in the Bible. I expected that. But one of the things, I guess one of my favorite parts of the book, was your description of inventors and inventions. But you also do a little plug for patent attorneys. I liked the one point you were saying about how the founder of the Fairchild Semiconductor Company, in conversations with his patent attorney, helped figure out that wiring the many connections could be supplanted by printing a conductive metal on the oxide plane. And this is what led to the integrated circuit and, obviously, all the computers we have today and all of that innovation.

Why Include Inventor Stories Like Qualcomm?

6:20

I guess, can you tell us, I mean, first of all, I love how you kind of, once you describe the invention, anybody could understand it, right? And that’s cool. But I guess my two questions are, why did you choose to include that in the book, these stories about these inventions, about this, about the story about Qualcomm and about other companies and Thomas Edison and so forth? And also, I think it’s a skill you have, and you’re able to distill these inventions so simply, but what does it say that some of the greatest inventions are like, “Hey, if you think about it, well, you just put one material with another material, and it worked”? I guess, what’s your takeaway from that?

James Edwards: Well, I put the inventor stories, a vast array of them, in briefly, but covering everybody from Edison to Noyce and Jack Kilby to, you’re right, many of them are famous names, some of them are not, but some are very impressive, like Susie Armstrong, who’s the inventor of putting the internet on your cell phone for Qualcomm. So she did something that has affected many billions of lives. So, I wanted, I put those in there because I wanted it to be something of a policy book but not a policy book. I wanted it to be approachable, understandable, enjoyable by a broad audience. Some of them might be Christians who are just interested in technology or in innovation. Some of them might be engaged in IP law, as you pointed to. Some might be inventors. And I wanted it to have something for a breadth of types of folks coming from all walks of life and even all religions. It’s grounded in Judeo-Christian scripture and in my Christian faith understanding, but to try to put it together in a way that it’s meaningful and approachable and encouraging, really, to people of any or no faiths.

Eli Mazour: Yeah, you know, obviously, I think, you know, it’s pretty simple, the message about creativity, about how that’s in, you know, God created the earth. You know, it’s not hard to take away there. I found your argument about the ownership, I guess, more interesting, but I guess, going back to creativity, you write that, and I guess I never thought about it because when we think of Adam’s punishment from being banished from the Garden of Eden, we, at least I, maybe wrongly, think that now he had to work afterwards. That’s kind of like what we had to do. But you discuss in the book that actually, when God created the earth, God created Adam, you say He gave him the power to be creative at that point, and he probably took pleasure from that creativity, and God as well. We don’t pay God licensing fees for His creation. So I guess my question to you, I understand your message about humans are driven to be creative.

Why Does Ownership Matter for Creativity to Flourish?

10:10

Why, God obviously created the earth, but why ownership? Why do we need to, why can’t we just gift all our creations to everybody else?

James Edwards: Well, a very interesting question. Often asked, those two are two of the attributes God possesses, but there are also two of the attributes that He chose to share with human beings, which scripture says is the creation that bears His image. Humans are made in God’s image, and that’s a tough, you know, that’s a very complex concept, but nobody really knows exactly all that that comprehends, but it is something that distinguishes human beings from other creatures. The more I looked at the words creativity or creation, those things throughout scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, and as well the terms for ownership or, in a couple of instances, metaphors related to ownership, those are from beginning to end of the scriptures. It’s God-given us those two. And as it turns out, the creation mandate to Adam and Eve was to bear fruit and work and keep the garden, to improve things. We’re given those faculties to be able to do that, to be able to create and come up with a better way to address something, whether it’s growing a tree or something else or a fruit. But it’s also the ownership part is tantamount to what is necessary. You can have creativity, but if ownership is tentative, it’s not really ownership, and what suffers is the bearing fruit, the working out, the result side of things. There will be less of innovation or creation or invention and more of trying to secure your ownership over something, whatever it is, and to me, it’s all the more important that God set up basically an equation: creativity plus ownership equals human flourishing. And as you pointed out, the Fall changed things. Work was not as strenuous. I mean, it took Adam’s strength and his mind and applying himself, and he would rest well at night, whatever he did that day. But at the same time, he didn’t have the things that cloud our minds and keep us awake at night. You know, things were different before the Fall, and after the Fall, things got worse, and that’s every aspect of creation suffers from that Fall, and so life got tougher. I think of the fact that I kind of doubt that in Eden, whatever device or implement that Adam may have created, that it would degrade over time. But that certainly has changed. And so that means, to me, that the default setting for human beings is poverty. Everything we own is degrading or it’s at risk of being stolen or otherwise destroyed. So, it’s important to keep those two connected, creativity and ownership, if there’s to be the mass flourishing that’s possible.

Eli Mazour: Yeah, I guess it reminds me, speaking of the policy debates, it reminds me of the conversation that’s going on about how maybe the weakening of patent rights is encouraging trade secrets, which is not the sharing of your creativity, and I think your message is for creativity to flourish, there needs to be ownership, otherwise it wouldn’t facilitate that. I think you have another interesting juxtaposition of quotes in the book. You talk about how you cite King Solomon, who said, “There’s nothing new under the sun,” because God created everything, and there’s nothing new under the sun, and obviously, there’s a famous quote that patent attorneys know, which is “Anything under the sun that is made by man could be patentable.” I’m curious. Did you find any connections between these two quotes, or was it just a coincidence? And then, I guess, do you

How Do Bible Passages Relate to Patent Law?

16:00

think the fact that God is the one who created everything, do you think that undermines in any way the case for, you know, that everything should be patentable?

James Edwards: I guess, yeah, God did create everything, basically giving us our world, our environment where we can survive and thrive. He gave us our abilities. He gave us many gifts. The thing is that we do have the ability to make things out of what He makes, but He makes things by speaking them into existence. I don’t think any inventor has achieved that just yet. The ability to speak things into existence from nothing doesn’t work for us. So yes, I intentionally used those two quotes involving “anything under the sun” from Chakrabarty about “anything under the sun that is made by man is patentable,” the patent eligibility case, Diamond v. Chakrabarty. You’re much better at pronouncing than I am. But yeah, so that I definitely put that right next to Solomon, the source of that phrase.

Eli Mazour: Yeah. And I guess it goes to the key, maybe the discomfort that people have with patent rights is that, “Hey, they just took things that were out there, obvious, and now they claim nobody can do this, even though it was sitting out there in the world.” Do you appreciate that sentiment? And I guess, what do you think it maybe misses from your view?

James Edwards: Well, it reminds me of a quote that’s in the book that I’m sure you’ll recall, that Wilbur Wright was quoted after the successful 1903 and then a few iterations after that of the Wright brothers’ airplane. And he says that now that everybody knows what the right invention is, knows how it works, and has attached words to describe them, i.e., coming up with nomenclature, now everybody looks at it and says, “Oh, that’s so simple.” In hindsight, maybe so, but it wasn’t on the front end, or else somebody would have figured that out way before the Wright brothers, because people had been working on human flight for ages.

Eli Mazour: Yeah. It’s that hindsight bias issue that, I guess, I don’t know if could be… Yeah, you know, obviously, you know, there’s debate about the Judeo-Christian roots of America, but, obviously, my podcast is named after the IP clause of the Constitution. So, I found that part of your book quite interesting about how that came about. And you acknowledge a part of that history which kind of maybe sheds doubt about how invested the Founders were in strong IP rights, and that Thomas Jefferson, who was, I guess, the first U.S. patent examiner, and Benjamin Franklin, they weren’t huge fans of IP rights, and it kind of reminded me, even though most of the people were at the time.

Founders’ Views on IP: What Did They Really Think?

20:00

And it kind of reminded me, I have this other book here by Pascale Attali. It’s a one-time patent. He describes how, you know, some of the same patent debates that we’re having now, whether there should be patent rights, the extent of them, have been going on for centuries. But I guess, when you look at that, when you look at, say, “Hey, how can Thomas Jefferson think that,” what conclusions do you come to, and what does it make you think about the people today who might not share your views about patents and IP?

James Edwards: Well, Jefferson is certainly a talented and brilliant forefather of our nation, and not to take anything away from him, but his perspective, at least with respect to created works, was different. He didn’t regard it as a natural right. He differentiated between the types of property, and that’s what modern libertarians, many do. There’s a carve-out, basically, of, “We’re not going to consider or protect this kind of property because it’s not going out into the wilderness where it’s purely pristine and improving that property and thereby appropriating or taking ownership of it by way of the improvement.” But the language in the Constitution, that was Madison’s and Charles Pinckney’s language, is that it’s new or useful, new or improved. I mean, I don’t see how you could get around that phrase, those terms, “new and improved” or “new or improved,” and think that this property is any less than actual property. It’s the perfection, the putting into something tangible that which was conceived in one person’s mind.

Eli Mazour: Yeah, you’re right. I guess, in some ways, it was unique to the United States where maybe in Europe, patents were something that a king randomly decided to grant his friends. In America, it was grounded in the Constitution. And as you point out, the writers of the Constitution thought that it was important. Do you think, what do you think made them so, I guess, passionate about that? You know, the Constitution’s pretty short, and they said, “You know, we need to put that right in there.” And do you think, were you able to find out any information about maybe how their religious views informed that, or was it some other kind of what really drove them, I guess?

James Edwards: Well, some of them were more religious than others, and all of them were biblically literate. It was a society at a time when, 20 or 30 years before the Revolution, there was this tremendous couple of decades-long Christian revival, and it went from north to south, all 13 colonies and even beyond, of, like, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, the lieutenants, and others.

What Caused America’s “Golden Age” of Patents?

24:00

showing up and preaching. And Franklin actually published and enjoyed listening to the sermons of Whitefield in particular. And this, I mean, this was a cultural phenomenon. It wasn’t just one church having a week of revival. This was months and years of sustained preaching by a growing body of itinerant preachers, and they were trying to spread the gospel of Christ. But then also, it contributed to restoring kind of the Judeo-Christian center that had been, like, with some of the earlier, like, the Pilgrims and other settlers. But, a couple of centuries later, comes the Great Awakening revival, and that founding generation who wrote the Constitution and Declaration, they’re the ones who were affected by that. They were in a biblically literate society, even for some of them, if it were simply form and manner, just going to attending church, but their hearts weren’t in it for whatever reason, they were still around it, and in many homes, the only or one of the few books that people had was a copy of the Bible. You then write about how we had a golden age of patents from, I guess, the early 1800s to the 20th century, and then things didn’t go so well, and now you’re saying we’re kind of repeating history. Can you talk about that? What is that cycle, and how are we repeating history, and what are the parallels that you’re seeing?

James Edwards: I guess the first patent law, 1790, was too restrictive. The second patent law, 1793, was too loose. So, the 1836 law was the one that kind of formalized things, and right down on F Street in Chinatown of Washington, D.C., is where the building is now, a Smithsonian building, but that was built expressly to be the U.S. Patent Office, and it was for about 90 years. That’s where the iconic inventors, Edison, Morse, and others, did their patenting work. It was the housing of patent models, and it put those on display, and that was a popular place for the public to come in and check out the newest inventions, the models of the newest inventions. And you think about that, they didn’t have iPods, they didn’t have iPhones, they didn’t have any type of distracting mechanisms. They actually knew who inventors were. Inventors at the time were really kind of household names, and kind of like we talk about some of the famous inventors today, like, I’m thinking inventors, and using it a little bit more loosely, like those who were, like, Steve Jobs coming up with the iPhone, coming up with the Macintosh.

Eli Mazour: Yeah, that’s an interesting topic because, you know, the people we celebrate today, right, they’re more celebrated, I guess, because they become, I don’t know, I guess maybe for their marketing genius, right, or for their, that they become extraordinarily wealthy. Do you think the people appreciated the actual inventions back then more because they were kind of easier to understand? They could look at the model and see what it was actually doing. Do you think that that has changed?

James Edwards: I don’t know about that because, I mean, as a practical matter, how many people actually got to Washington from across the country at a time when the country is growing to actually go in the patent building? It was probably a fairly small number, but there were, I’m sure, a lot of broadly read newspaper articles and magazine articles, and those things would be spreading the word about the latest inventions. So, less the model and more the news about who’s doing what.

Eli Mazour: I guess I meant less the model, but I meant more of celebrating the act of inventing something specific.

James Edwards: Yes, because it changed their lives. The telegraph, as it became commercialized and adopted more widely, I mean, that profoundly changed communications. Just as, for instance, Samuel Morse in the Capitol dome. You’ve seen up there, the frieze at the very top

Are We Repeating History with Weakening Patent Rights?

30:00

beneath the Capitol Dome, is George Washington’s apotheosis. And if you look up in there, right at George Washington’s feet is Samuel Morse. I forgot the name of the artist who painted that frieze, but, I mean, he put Samuel Morse, an inventor and artist, by the way, pictured in there.

Eli Mazour: Yeah, that’s interesting. Yeah. So, obviously, there’s a celebration of inventors that changed, and I guess you see parallels to what’s happening in modern times. Can you tell us about that?

James Edwards: I guess in the Progressive Era, the early part of the 20th century, was when there was a movement to regulate, and it built up government and empowered government, and especially with respect to creating antitrust laws. I’m not against antitrust laws, but I am against the wrongly applied enforcement of antitrust laws, and especially with respect to its crossing paths with invention and creativity. So, we’re seeing that happening, the strengthening of antitrust to the detriment, as Jonathan Barnett catalogs, and I cite his work in the book, about how the antitrust laws were enforced over the first 60 or so years of their existence, and it was detrimental to access to capital for new entrants, people with the know-how or the ability to invent and patent. But then they would be unable to take on the favored few, the large companies that were incumbent government contractors, and that was enabled because the government could control them and appreciated having a handful that they could turn to. But they did impose restrictions, mandatory licensing, and all kinds of aggressive requirements that diminished overall invention and shut out the little guy. Back in the golden age of inventing in America that we were just discussing, when all the various inventors who came, most of them came from very modest backgrounds, they didn’t start out rich, but their inventions were valuable enough that they became wealthy as a result. And that was really hindered, the entrance of new inventors, at least at that level of inventors, and we’re getting close.

Eli Mazour: So, you know, I definitely want to talk about what’s going on today with you. Obviously, that’s kind of what

Why Don’t All Conservatives Support Strong Patent Rights?

34:00

you focus on day-to-day. Reading your book and listening to you, you think, and this is, I’m asking this because, obviously, I think this is the world you’re most familiar with, you’d say, “Hey, every conservative Republican should be pro-IP rights, pro-patent rights,” because of everything that you’ve talked about today, but actually, if you look on Capitol Hill, where you got your start and where you still educate people, there’s a wide variety of views. People you think of as quote-unquote conservative Republicans are mostly concerned about patent trolls and so forth. Why do you think it is? How do we get to this point?

James Edwards: I think just the combination of things beginning around 1990, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the opening of communist Russia and its satellites in the Soviet Union. I mean, that’s not saying that’s a bad thing, but it did change the way that businesses could be conducting business. And so, it opened, and that led to opening up China as well. And China’s moving toward large-scale manufacturing and other things, and so IP became important, at least the inventions, not that they’d respect the IP necessarily, but that became a very important piece of China’s growth, expansion economically. The way businesses thought, large, internationally oriented businesses, thought that by doing business, commerce would open and expand their eyes to the benefits and appropriate adoption of free enterprise has. And yet that hasn’t really panned out. It’s been kind of taken advantage of, but some well-meaning large international companies would promote policies that have led to some of the weakening of respect for patents. But I guess, well, I guess my question is, is it because of these companies, I guess, these large companies who might, for business reasons, might support weaker patent rights? Is that why a lot of the people you consider conservative Republicans have different views? Is that kind of what you… There are a lot of Republicans who are good on patent issues from my perspective. They’re for a strong creativity-plus-ownership model of the patent world, whether they believe it as a biblical position or otherwise, but if they understand that creativity and ownership together are necessary for flourishing. There’s a different set who hold many conservative positions on some issues, but on this one, for whatever reason, they don’t. They view it as something that is not as worth respecting, and I don’t get it. I don’t understand that, or they buy into, as you mentioned, the troll narrative. The patent troll narrative is something that, as you know, has been driven by the implementer community, the ones who need and have to license the patents in order to use the technology in their devices for their purposes, and they don’t like doing that because it’s a high input cost for them. So, infringement first, and then, with that, you couple that with the weakening of patent rights through various court decisions and legislation, then it’s something that, yeah, there’s enough truth to say that there are or were patent trolls. There’s enough to it that you could say there were a number of weak patents, their term, not mine. But, at the same time, the narrative is an extreme, gross exaggeration of what was either trolling or weak patents. And they’ve turned that into the received wisdom of the age, and people who otherwise would be thinking, should be thinking, accept it without question or without sufficient skepticism to overcome, to understand it’s not all that it’s being portrayed to have been.

Eli Mazour: Yeah. I think I’ve shared this story on my podcast, but I’ve had very diverse

Why Is Eagle Forum’s IP Dinner Bipartisan?

40:00

experiences of meeting members of Congress in different situations, and as soon as they find out I’m a patent attorney, the first thing they say is “patent troll,” and hopefully your book can start changing that reaction. You know, I guess we started talking about the Eagle Forum and the dinner you hold. And it’s a conservative organization, but, as I mentioned, it’s a bipartisan dinner. I think you guys always make it a point to invite Democrats. Can you share why that is? Why, as a lifelong conservative organization, you, as a lifelong conservative, why for that dinner do you invite Democrats? And, I guess, what’s your thinking about the coalition that shares your views on these issues?

James Edwards: Well, there are two things. One is the fact that it was modeled by Phyllis Schlafly. Phyllis Schlafly was politically astute, and she understood and was sophisticated enough to understand that a coalition in any legislative or policy fight, you’ve got to have a majority, and not everybody’s going to come from the same corner, right? But that doesn’t matter. So, we were fighting the America Invents Act before its adoption, and here’s, you know, Phyllis Schlafly’s people and other conservative movement types and those from various innovator sides of the world, the inventor and pro-patent side, or trade associations and organizations that are patent-dependent, and, you know, John Conyers was then the ranking member, I believe, of the House Judiciary Committee. His folks are right there. And, you know, we’re working with him and Marcy Kaptur and others who are pro-patent, but they’re liberal Democrats. But we’re not talking about XYZ liberal or ABC conservative issues. We’re talking about patents and this particular bill. So, let’s make common cause with whoever we can get on our side. And we fought valiantly and hard. But the others outmaneuvered us, and they outnumbered us. So, we were massacred while giving way to the AIA in that process. But, you know, she modeled working with whoever it was. They didn’t have to be from her side of the philosophical aisle or political aisle. And same with me, I came along at a time, first years in Washington during the Reagan years, and I saw the members I worked for on Capitol Hill, they modeled it for me, too. It was, we had our political fight in the elections. Now we’ve got this group of people. Our job here is to run the country, i.e., legislate. And there are some people elected to Congress these days who don’t seem to know the job description is to actually legislate and oversee and appropriate and do fundamental, basic things. And so that’s something that I want to do is to model how you can and should be, as in most instances, sometimes it’s going to be purely partisan division, but that shouldn’t be the norm for all issues, and thankfully, patents and invention right now are still pretty bipartisan, and I’m proud to work on that issue for that reason.

Eli Mazour: And you know, you mentioned the AIA, obviously, that didn’t go your way. But now there’s some legislative efforts, I guess, to maybe fix some of the issues with the AIA and some of the other problems that you talk about in your book with regards to injunctions

Status of the PREVAIL, PERA, and RESTORE Acts?

44:30

and patent eligibility, various legislative proposals and draft bills and so forth. And I’m thinking of PREVAIL, PERA, RESTORE. I guess, you know, we’re kind of in the beginning of this Congress, or maybe not the beginning, but I guess what do you think, where do you think those efforts stand? What do you think it will take to kind of get them over to the finish line?

James Edwards: Well, I’m not going to put any money on a bet for any of them or all of them being passed by the end of the Congress. But I think there will be real progress. Look at the fact that at this point, this early in the two-year cycle of this Congress, you’ve got three bills already introduced. The PERA, the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, which would correct the uncertainty and crosscurrents of judicial rulings on patent eligibility. You’ve got the PREVAIL Act, which would basically put rules and constraints upon PTAB that are the same rules and constraints on federal district courts. So, you’d get greater fairness and due process. Plus, you’ve got the RESTORE Patent Rights Act, which would correct eBay and the implementation of eBay’s decision that has resulted in very difficult chances faced in order to get an injunction after having proven validity and infringement of a patent for 200 years. That wasn’t really an issue. It’s the norm. Courts understood that, just like any other property right, it applied the same rule of an injunction. And further, it’s just completely at odds with any legal or other kind of thinking to say, “Well, we’re going to deny access to injunctive relief for patents, but only patents.” Copyright still gets it, you know, other IP forms still have access to injunction. So, it’s out of step altogether to not have injunctive relief available for patent owners.

Eli Mazour: You know, one of the big champions of, at least PERA and, I think, PREVAIL now, was Senator Thom Tillis, who worked together with Democrat Senator Coons from Delaware. But Senator Thom, I guess, announced he’s retiring. Are you concerned that the momentum will be lost? Do you think there’s somebody ready to pick up the baton on the GOP side in the Senate?

James Edwards: That’s a good question. There’s no doubt that Senator Tillis has invested himself mightily and highly beneficially for the cause of appropriate patent jurisprudence. He is going to be missed, no doubt, because nobody’s been as devoted as him on the Republican side of the aisle, at least in the Senate. Will someone come and step up? Certainly, somebody will. I mean, the fact is that there’s a growing body of Republican senators who are coming to realize, part of it as a consequence of the competitiveness and innovation race with China and the need to keep our outrunning the Chinese in multiple areas of technology, especially the emerging and critical technologies. And so, to their credit, there are people who are taking a really close look at what is going on in the patent world and how it relates to those concerns.

Eli Mazour: Anybody stand out to you, I guess, from that?

James Edwards: I wouldn’t want to put anybody on the spot. But there are probably three or four.

Eli Mazour: Yeah. I guess one interesting dynamic in the last Congress, I think PREVAIL, at least, went the furthest in terms of getting a vote in the committee and passing, but it was a narrow vote, and if you look at two of the members who voted against it, one was Senator Ted Cruz, and, I guess, he thought it didn’t go far enough, and then Senator Josh Hawley, he said that, I guess, he was concerned it would hurt generic drugs. And, you know, you work on these issues day-to-day, and then you see that vote taking place. I guess, maybe, is there any takeaway from that experience, from that vote, about what needs to be done to kind of make more progress and move in the right direction in the future?

James Edwards: Well, I think Cruz and several other Republican senators who followed him on PREVAIL had its markup. But I think it was a unique set of circumstances, and he was taking a position for effect, and it wasn’t necessarily with respect to not wanting to have the substance of PREVAIL to move forward or to be enacted even. I think that was unique circumstances.

Eli Mazour: Yeah. And I guess, maybe there’s, I’m sure you’ve seen it. Legislators mature, so maybe this will provide opportunities for Senator Cruz. You know, we’re kind of coming up on time, but I can’t help asking you about one of the biggest stories, obviously, happening in the patent policy and IP world, and that’s Kathi Vidal leading the U.S. Patent Office and all the changes that she’s made there. Any thoughts about that? And, I guess, how the administration is doing as a whole on patent policy issues.

James Edwards: Well, Kathi Vidal, as the acting director of PTO, has done a terrific job. She stepped right in. She’s been close to Lighthizer, who is, as you know, a patent owner and inventor himself. So, he’s not somebody who’s just kind of taking things lying down. So, to his credit, he’s done a lot of great things to allow Kathi Vidal to make some changes. And, particularly, I like the relief given on PTAB discretionary denials. That is important because she understands, and, you know, frankly, so do those who are big PTAB users and PTAB fans, that PTAB has become and is used as a weapon of efficient infringement or predatory infringement, pick your term. And she understands that there needs to be quiet title, and she’s actually read the language of the statute, the AIA statute, that this isn’t supposed to be something that is an open-ended vehicle to attack and eliminate patents willy-nilly throughout the entire life of the patent. It’s supposed to be quiet title. This is supposed to be a short-term, one-bite-at-the-apple thing, and it’s supposed to be cheaper, you know, make things cheaper and faster and all of that. Well, haha, joke’s on us if we buy that. So, Kathi Vidal has done a tremendous job. I’m so happy that she’s there. I hope that she will, as the new John Squires is confirmed, eventually, I suppose, that she will have his ear, and that he will recognize what she and Lighthizer have done to make improvements, dramatic improvements, important improvements in a short time, and it needs to continue in that direction. So, all the praise to Kathi Vidal. I think she’s doing a fantastic job.

Eli Mazour: Yeah. John Squires will definitely have big shoes to fill, and that’s great advice to him about how to do that. You know, we started talking about your book. We haven’t finished talking about what’s going on today, and I was, when I was reading it, I’m like, I really hope Eagle Forum has a plan to gift this book to maybe every new staff or new intern on Capitol Hill, so as they rise through the ranks, they can maybe educate future legislators about some of the lessons you teach here.

Final Message to Congress About Patents & Human Flourishing

55:00

Any final thoughts? Anything, I guess, if you could talk to every member of Congress, every senator, anything that you would tell them about patents, IP, the American story?

James Edwards: I’d say read this book because this basically explains to you why creativity and ownership together, without question, that the two are connected, and that property is property. Securely, that needs to happen if you want to have mass flourishing, otherwise it’s not going to happen. Tentative rights of ownership are no rights of ownership, so it needs to be strong, reliable, enforceable.

Eli Mazour: Well, Jim, thank you for joining Clause 8. Thank you for writing this book. I’ll leave it right here. I’ll definitely be recommending it to people. It’s a great read. It’s a great story. It’s something I never actually thought about until Jim told me he was writing this book, and I was excited to read it. And, by the way, we didn’t get to talk about it, but I love the cover. It’s amazing, kind of, you know, it’s, I think, just looking at it, you kind of feel…

James Edwards: Thank you so much for the compliments, and it’s, as you know, the fingers in the Sistine Chapel. Yes, Michelangelo’s painting, and it’s the divine spark, basically, that set forth the invention and creativity and ownership.

Eli Mazour: That’s amazing. It’s an amazing metaphor and an amazing truth on its own, and the connection to the story you tell. So, Jim, thanks again. Thanks again for joining Clause 8, and I look forward to more conversations with you in the future, and I look forward to the next Eagle Forum event and seeing all you do there.

James Edwards: Thank you, Eli. Great to be with you.

[Music]