
	Where results make sense

Topic: Statute of Monopolies

Related Topics

1623

In the News (Mon 16 Nov 09)

Northern Trust

Marvin Harrison

Peter Chernin

Gary Locke

Match Play

Penelope Cruz

Mickey Rourke

AR Rahman

Danny Boyle

Hugh Jackman

	Statute of Monopolies 1623 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		The first of them was granted by Henry VI in 1449 to a Flemish man a 20 year monopoly (co-incidentally, the current length of UK/EU patents is still 20 years) on the manufacture of stained glass (destined for Eton College).
		This was incorporated into the Statute of Monopolies in which Parliament restricted the crown's power explicitly so that the King could only issue letters patents to the inventors or introducers of original inventions for a fixed number of years.
		The Statute of Monopolies was later developed by the courts to produce modern patent law; this innovation was soon adopted by other countries.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies_1623 (464 words)

	History of patent law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		The first patent law was a Venetian Statute of 1474 in which the Republic of Venice issued a decree by which new and inventive devices, once they had been put into practice, had to be communicated to the Republic in order to obtain legal protection against potential infringers.
		The first such letter was granted by Henry VI in 1449 to a Flemish man a 20 year monopoly (co-incidentally, the current length of UK/EU patents is still 20 years) on the manufacture of stained glass (destined for Eton College).
		This was incorporated into the Statute of Monopolies in which Parliament restricted the crown's power explicitly so that the King could only issue letters patent to the inventors or introducers of original inventions for a fixed number of years.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/History_of_patent_law (1028 words)

	Alternative Law Forum - A History of Patent Law (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-26)
		Although, monopoly was considered as contrary to the public interest, there is no record to suggest that the people came out against it during the early years of her reign.
		The saying there shall be no monopolies lessen the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression”.
		Monopoly on a industry by means of patent control constituted a monopoly of monopolies, such monopolies strangles the sciences and the useful arts.” Jefferson set very high standards in granting as a patent administrator which resulted in very few patents being granted during his tenure.
	www.altlawforum.org /PUBLICATIONS/document.2004-12-18.0853561257 (15071 words)

	Open reSource - The Open Content Era (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-26)
		England followed with the Statute of Monopolies in 1623 under King James I of England.
		The Statute replaced the monopoly enjoyed by the Stationer's Company granted in 1556 during the reign of Mary I which after several renewals expired in 1695.
		The statute of 1709 vests authors rather than printers with the monopoly on the reproduction of their works.
	sterneco.editme.com /OpenContent (2600 words)

	Why is Software Patentable?
		The Statute of Monopolies was established in England in 1623 and is the original source of Anglo-American law.
		As a result, the Statute of Monopolies was passed.
		The Statute banned all present and future monopolies except for inventions, which were preserved by section 6 of that Statute.
	www.bazpat.com.au /why_is_software_patentable.htm (1322 words)

	Brief Amicus Curiae, Eldred v. Ashcroft
		When the Copyright Act of 1709, the famous ``Statute of Anne,'' was framed, the drafters insisted on a limited term far more stringent than authors, including John Locke, had proposed; they adopted the fourteen-year limit from the Statute of Monopolies.
		The question is whether there is anything in text or history rendering constitutionally objectionable the eleven extensions of the monopoly term in the last forty years, resulting in a virtual cessation of enlargements to the public domain, capped by the statute before the Court, which postpones the reversion on every single existing copyright for decades.
		It is sufficient to point out that such a principle for the award of copyright monopolies conflicts with the constitutionally mandated requirement of originality: Congress cannot elect to preserve books, films, or music by conveying to the conservator a statutory monopoly of copying and distribution lasting decades.
	emoglen.law.columbia.edu /publications/eldred-amicus.html (3569 words)

	SSRN-The Common Law Invention in its Original Form by Justine Pila
		However, whilst the Statute of Monopolies is generally accepted as forming the basis of all common law patent systems including modern conceptions of the invention itself, discussions of its provisions have tended to be ignorant of the principles those provisions were intended to reflect on its original enactment.
		The result has been a tendency to treat the Statute of Monopolies as having given rise to a new body of law, rather than given legislative form to an existing jurisprudence.
		The purpose of this article is to analyse the origin and early development of the invention at common law with a view to understanding the scope of inherent patentability at the date of enactment of the Statute of Monopolies.
	papers.ssrn.com /sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=270909 (335 words)

	Intellectual Property Policy Directorate - Intellectual Property and Innovation in the Knowledge—Based Economy
		By contrast, the Statute of Monopolies of 1624 (Eng.) referred simply to "any manner of new manufactures," an expansively interpreted formula used even now in Australia and New Zealand.
		The grant of patents under the Statute of Monopolies of 1624 was discretionary.
		They approve the U.K. approach, under which the interpretation of a claim referring to a load–bearing structure that extended vertically was held to include structures that leaned eight degrees off the vertical: any reasonable builder reading the claim in context would understand "vertically" to include such tolerances, said the court.
	strategis.ic.gc.ca /epic/internet/inippd-dppi.nsf/en/ip01250e.html (3120 words)

	Monopoly, Mercantilism, and Intellectual Property
		Allen and the Statute of Monopolies are frequently, almost reflexively, invoked as establishing a baseline norm of economic freedom from which governments depart when they grant exclusive rights to deal in any trade or article of commerce.
		Against this free-market backdrop, all such grants are suspect, and only those that are justified by reference to their originality or utility are valid.
		Rejecting the dominant view of Darcy and the Statute of Monopolies, the paper provides a more detailed political and legislative history of both the compromise leading to Darcy and the adoption of the Statute of Monopolies than any to date, and consequently demonstrates that their true importance lies in their political, not economic, content.
	repositories.cdlib.org /bclt/lts/9 (219 words)

	Text of References in the Patent Office Pony
		But, with the acceptance of the Crown of the Monopoly policy advocated by Acontius in 1559, the responsibility for the introduction of new industries was by a gradual process of devolution shifted from the Crown to the patentee, upon the faith of whose representations the grant was both drawn and issued.
		In the sixteenth century the sole test of the monopoly contrary to the law, as defined by Coke, was that the grant should not seek to restrain the public of any freedom or liberty that they had before, or hinder them in their lawful trade.
		Stephens attests a tendency to rely upon a verbal criticism of the Statute of Monopolies rather than upon the earlier practice, of which that statute is professedly an exponent.
	www.ipmall.fplc.edu /hosted_resources/PatentHistory/pohulme.htm (6992 words)

	carnathan (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-26)
		Currently, the statute applies a mish-mash of all those ideas, and the policy arguments offered in support of the first-to-invent system are ex post justifications rather than explanations of concepts that drove the development of the rules.
		Nevertheless, to determine the identity of first inventor, the statute at times requires consideration not only of the dates of "conception" and "reduction to practice (RTP)," but also the "reasonable diligence" of an inventor who is first-to-conceive, but last to reduce his invention to practice.
		The intent of the statute was to guard against defeating patents by the setting up of a prior invention, which had never been reduced to practice.
	www.law.ua.edu /lawreview/carnathan.htm (19874 words)

	Electronic Frontier, Copyright
		In England, the first statutory intervention occurred with the enactment of the Statute of Monopolies in 1624 which sought to put an end to the Crown's issuance of monopolies.
		For Scotland, patents continued to be issued under the Royal prerogative until the Act of Union had the effect of extending the provisions of the Statute of Monopolies to Scotland.
		In 1709 the first copyright statute was passed which conferred an exclusive right upon an author or his or her assignee in respect of a work which was registered with the Stationers' Company.
	www.suburbia.com.au /~suzieq/chapters/lotef/copyright.html (9192 words)

	Digital Law Online: History
		Patents as a way for government to promote innovation by rewarding an inventor with a monopoly on his or her invention for a limited term predate the founding of the United States.
		It authorized the granting of a patent for “any useful art, manufacture, engine, machine, or device, or any improvement therein not before known or used.” The invention also had to be “sufficiently useful and important.” The term for a patent was fourteen years, following the lead of the English Statute of Monopolies.
		The decision to grant a patent resided with three cabinet members: the Secretary of State (Thomas Jefferson), the Secretary of War (Henry Knox), and the Attorney General (Edmund Randolph), collectively referred to as the Commissioners for the Promotion of the Useful Arts.
	www.digital-law-online.info /lpdi1.0/treatise52.html (602 words)

	Patent (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-26)
		Although there is evidence suggesting that something like patents was used among some ancient Greek cities, patents in the modern sense originated in Italy.
		England followed with the Statute of Monopolies in 1623 under King James I. Prior to this time, the crown would issue letters patent providing any person with a "monopoly" to produce particular goods or provide particular services.
		The first of them was granted by Henry VI in 1449 to a Flemish man a 20 year monopoly on the manufacture of stained glass.
	www.ishaglobal.com /articles/patent.html (1002 words)

	Should the U.S. Supreme Court Cite Foreign Precedents?
		This was the only English statute dealing with patents, which it did in a few words making patents for inventions an allowable exception to the general rule against monopolies.
		Coke’s distinctive contribution to English patent law (long before the statute) was his opinion that the common law did not countenance a patent on an improvement or addition to an existing product.
		The English statute itself was a dead letter for a century and a half from its enactment until shortly before the American Revolution, so English patent jurisprudence had only a short head start on American.
	hnn.us /articles/23499.html (986 words)

	Business process found patentable by Federal Court of Australia
		Justice Heerey found State Street to be persuasive, in spite of the differences between United States patent law and the Statute of Monopolies.
		Justice Heerey also noted the observation of Professor James Lahore[4] that business, commercial and financial schemes had never been considered patentable, and that a distinction has been drawn between the discovery of laws or principles of nature and their application to produce a particular practical and useful result.
		It was said that the Welcome Real-Time was seeking to monopolise a series of known integers for the purpose of a particular kind of loyalty scheme and was thereby preventing other traders from seeking to use those integers or the same composition of them in their own customer loyalty schemes.
	www.findlaw.com.au /article/1992.htm (1163 words)

	Are patents for methods of medical treatment contrary to the ordre public and morality or "generally inconvenient"? -- ...
		Since the entirety of section six of the Statute of Monopolies
		English Statute of Monopolies of 1623, 21 Jac I, c 3: S 6 http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resorces/lipa/patents/English_Statute1623.pdf (accessed 1 Jun 2004).
		Of patents and patients: new monopolies in medical methods.
	jme.bmjjournals.com /cgi/content/full/30/5/470 (4606 words)

	ALRC Discussion Paper 68 Gene Patenting and Human Health - 6. Patentability of Genetic Sequences and Technologies
		It is generally accepted that, in practice, a pure monopoly is unlikely to arise through the application of patent law.
		Any manner of new manufacture the subject of letters patent and grant of privilege within section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies, and includes an alleged invention.
		that the present threshold test for patentability by reference to section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies and to the expression ‘manner of new manufacture’ be retained, without specific legislative inclusions or exclusions.
	www.austlii.edu.au /au/other/alrc/publications/dp/68/06.html (17641 words)

	Research Licensing and Technology Development
		The foundation of the U.S. patent system is built upon England's Statute of Monopolies, enacted in 1623 as a means of counteracting the crown's abuse of market control.
		In Colonial America, after some debate, control of patents was federalized under Article I, Section 8 of the original Constitution: "[t]he Congress shall have to power...
		The phrase, "exclusive right" has been determined not to convey any affirmative right for an inventor (or patent owner) to practice his or her invention.
	www.hopkinsmedicine.org /webnotes/licensing/0303.cfm (668 words)

	[No title]
		The first United States patent act, passed in 1790, was based partly on the 1623 English Statute of Monopolies.
		That act gave a narrow monopoly to the creators of “any useful art, manufacture, engine machine or device, or any improvement therein not before known or used.” The 1623 English Statute of Monopolies had similar language granting a monopoly to the “first and true inventor” of a new and useful creation.
		The United States Patent Act of 1790 also contained language regarding “the first and true inventor or discoverer.” One famous patent law historian, Edward Walterscheid, speculated that the real reason the United States adopted the first-to-invent system, rather than a first-to-file system, was related to a specific patent dispute.
	www-personal.umich.edu /~rjmorris/fall05/heller_pkt.doc (8364 words)

	Practice - Competition
		Ever since the Statute of Monopolies 1623 intellectual property and competition law have been intimately connected.
		Through my intellectual property and technology practice I have acquired considerable knowledge and experience of competition law.
		I also advise on, and draft submissions to, regulatory authorities.
	www.johnlambert.law.pro /praccomp.htm (132 words)

	SSRN-Monopoly, Mercantilism, and the Politics of Regulation by Thomas Nachbar
		The paper concludes by considering the ramifications that this new understanding has for modern debates about intellectual property.
		Nachbar, Thomas B., "Monopoly, Mercantilism, and the Politics of Regulation".
		Email address for THOMAS B. University of Virginia School of Law
	papers.ssrn.com /sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=707167 (283 words)

	Australia - Patent Protection for Business Methods
		As a defense to a charge of infringement, the defendants argued that such a claim did not define a patentable invention under the Australian Patent Statute.
		The Australian definition of an invention is that the invention must be a "manner of manufacture" as set out in the English Statute of Monopolies in 1623.
		The court noted that in National Research and Development Corporation v.
	ladas.com /BULLETINS/2002/0202Bulletin/AustraliaBusinessMethods.html (343 words)

	Intellectual Property Chronology: to 1799
		1557 monopoly on publishing granted by Mary I to the Stationers' Company
		1614 English Monopolies Act prohibits Crown's claiming absolute prerogative over existing publication
		1709 British Statute of Anne provides basis for copyright law in future Australian colonies, with a 14 year protection for authors
	www.caslon.com.au /ipchronology.htm (667 words)

	Index of Constitutional Materials Relating to the Appellant's Defence
		Paragraph 53.64, page 83 (the Statute of Edward III, 1334 and 1350) the reference in the Appeal to the Statutes of Edward III, 1336 and 1352, is a computer error
		Paragraph 53.65, page 83 (the Case of Monopolies, 1602)
		Paragraph 24.1, page 18 (the Statute of Monopolies, 1623)
	www.principalityofcamside.cc /InTheCourts/AplDoc07.htm (826 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)