Are you arguing otherwise? (I can’t tell exactly what you’re referring to as “parent”.)
* (and copyright, but patents are the subject here)
To me it seems like
> If patents do exactly what they are intended to do, they damage periods of rapid, cheap progress.
is very much in line with the wording of the constitution. I guess in order to see that you have to also believe that monopolies hurt rapid, cheap progress. I think most reasonable people do.
The counter argument is “if you can’t make a return on investment in innovation, you tend to get less investment in innovation”. Whether that return comes from monopoly in corporate behavior or legal protection from patents, somehow you want to allow some (but limited) profit to be made from investments in R&D.
You can't have clear idea of what what the constitution means without knowing what was the terminology and context when it was written.
George Washington and James Madison wrote and promoted patent system extensively outside what is written in the constitution. Examples: Madison Federalist No. 43 etc. President Washington called on Congress to create a patent system in the first the State of the Union address ever. It resulted the Patent Act of 1790.
The US constitution reads [The Congress shall have power] “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.”
Sounds very similar to the “opinion” of the parent comment.