They are a means to an end, absolutely. I wasn't try to imply that the constitution recognized Intellectual Property as a kind of property that people have some kind of inherent right to. In fact, I believe the opposite, but realize I may have implied that's what I believe, and that's what these responses are reacting to.

However, it's that end that's being examined here, not the means. My point was that by granting a limited-time monopoly on an invention, Congress can advance the state of "Science and useful Arts". It can be argued what is meant by "promote". As I noted, the historical context makes it pretty clear that it's meant as an incentive to invent, not necessarily public documentation of inventions, which really came later. This is exactly what is said in the article: "The idea behind patents is to create a financial incentive to promote innovation: patents ensure that the inventor of a new idea can get compensated for it, rather than seeing her idea immediately ripped off by copycats".

Regardless, what absolutely is missing from that clause in the constitution is any requirement at all that there be a public disclosure of the invention. That's what I was saying the constitution was clear on. Any assertion of public disclosure being the purpose is an interpolation, because the constitution has absolutely no requirement that that take place. All patents could be secretly filed away, for all it cares.