[syshum]

One should argue that being prohibited from talking about your technology is a 1st amendment violation, and if we are to have the concept of "Intellectual property" then the government banning you from selling it would be a 5th amendment violation with out just compensation.,

However given that the constitution is widely ignored by the US government today, with full support of the court system, it is unlikely that the constitution will protect anyone.

[tombone12]

The government awards him both the patent and the intellectual property, the latter not being defined by the constitution.

[syshum]

The authority to create copyright and patent law is most certainly in the constitution, if it were not all copyright and patent law would be unconstitutional

People seem to forget what the constitution is, the Constitution grants government its power, if the constitution is silent on a matter than the government is suppose to be powerless, is not suppose to engage in that activity.

This means a whole host of things the government does, should be unconstitutional, but sadly the courts have interrupted the constitution to include powers it does not contain.

[maxerickson]

An interesting exercise would be to find court rulings that refer to "intellectual property" rather than to some specific thing that gets dumped in that basket.

[tomohawk]

Not quite. The government has patent laws to protect the rights of the inventor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

They've turned it upside down and made it protect the state instead. The constitution does not grant this power to the state.