[DannyBee]

Unfortunately, patent rights are quite literally the right to exclude others from doing things. That's it.

Patent owners don't even have the right to make the invention themselves (because it may infringe on other patents).

So your problem is fairly foundational.

[webstrand]

The judiciary has decided to ignore the preamble "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". If that language was respected, the way parents currently work would be clearly unconstitutional.

[mjevans]

'useful arts' in that era meant what we'd call 'trades skills' today.

'To promote the progress of science (total human knowledge) and skilled technical artisans.'

Arguably, given the pace of technical innovation, and the clear effects on independent artisans, there shouldn't be patents at all. Copyright should also be re-evaluated, and if it still exists (it's so very easy to copy anything these days), and targeted towards maximum cultural diffusion of expressions of ideas within pop-culture cycles (20 years sounds LONG for such a timescale).

Trade Marks, however, those are consumer protection and product reputation issues and call for registered (pay a fee to the government) marks that renew as long as paid.

[DannyBee]

I'm not a fan of patents, but i'm not sure this is fair.

That phrase had a fairly specific meaning back when it was written, and they seem to be hewing to it.

It does not match today's colloquial understanding for sure, but that doesn't mean they are ignoring it.