Prager History of IP 1545-1787 JPOS 1944

15/12/2015
PragerHistoryofIP15451787JPOS1944.htm
1.Introduction
Many modern writers are inclined to consider the English Statute of
Monopolies as the only important antecedent of existing patent laws [1].
However,wefindoccasionalremarksthatthepatentlawsofFrance,alongwith
those of England and the United States, are branches of a single system of
jurisprudence[2],andthattheyallgobacktoasystemofprivileges,developedin
Venice[3].
When investigating this, we actually find that for centuries before the
AmericanandFrenchRevolutionsof1787and1789,Francehadapatentlaw,at
least as well developed as the parallel English law [4], although industrially,
EnglandwasmuchmoresuccessfulthanFranceandwecantracetheFrenchand
English systems into one that grew up in the Republic of Venice, between 1450
and1550[5].
1.Forinstance:RobinsononPatents,1890,vol.I,p.15inGermany:M.Wassermann,D.Pat.
R.,1910,p.5inItaly:E.PiolaCaselli,inDig.Ital.,underPrivativeIndustr.,1913,p.8.
2.W.Phillips.LawofPatents,1837,p.27.
3.Kohler,Lehrbuchd.Pat.R.,1908,p.2E.Luzzato,Tratt.Gen.d.PrivativeIndustr.,1914,
vol.1,p.2027.
4.E.Blanc,Contrefacon.1838Isambert,Anc.LoisFr.J.Isore,inRevueHist.deDr.Fr.et
Etr.,1937,p.94Malapert,inJournaldesEconomistes,1878J.B.Montfalcon,Hist.Mon.de
laVilledeLyon,vol.2,1866E.Pouillet,Dessins,1903RecueildesEditsetDecl.,1776A.
Renouard,Brevets,1825.
5.ArchivioVenetoAttieMem.delR.1st.VenetoHoratioF.Brown,TheVenetianPrinting
Press,1891B.Cecchetti,VetrariaVeneziana,1874R.FulininArchivioVeneto,vol.23,1882
F.C.Lane,VenetianShipsandShipbuildersoftheRenaissance,1934N.Stolfi,Prop.Lit.et
Artist.,1916G.Zanetti,DellOriginediAlcuneArtiPrinc.appr.iVeneziani,1841.
711
TheearlypatentdocumentsofVeniceandFrancearepresentedherewith,in
Englishtranslation.Onthebasisofthesedocuments,supplementedbythewell
knownEnglishstatutes,wecanhopetogetabetterhistoricalapproachtoourown
patentsystem.
Such a historical approach has more than purely scientific interest. There
are several obscurities in our constitutional patent clause [7] and the formative
period is so devoid of records concerning this clause [8] that extrinsic evidence,
from foreign sources, has distinct significance for a proper construction of the
clause.
2.TheBeginningsinVenice.
TheRepublicofVenice[9]wasthedominatingseapowerof the world from the
year 1000 to 1500, roughly speaking. She had started in obscurity, about 500 had
grownbyfishery,andlaterbycommerceacquiredtheAdriaticestablishedtradingrights
and colonies, by contracts with the Saracens, during the crusades joined the Franks
TextBox:HeinOnline26J.Pat.Off.Soc'y7561944
TextBox:HeinOnline26J.Pat.Off.Soc'y7581944
inTextBox:HeinOnline26J.Pat.Off.Soc'y7311944
occupying
the Byzantine
Empire preserved most of her vast possessions in bloody
wars with Genoa and finally occupied a great part of the rich plains and towns
http://www.compilerpress.ca/Library/Prager%20History%20of%20IP%2015451787%20JPOS%201944.htm#1545:_Intellectual_Property_Statute_[193]_
1/36
15/12/2015
ofnorthernItaly.
About1400,shelargelymonopolizedthetradebetweenEuropeandtherestof
thethenknownworld.Atthattime,andforabouthundredfiftyyearsthereafter,her
powerandwealthwasgreat.Apictorialrecordofitispreservedinthepaintingsofthe
Bellinis, Carpaccio, Palma Vecchio and Titian. Industrially, the Venice of the
Renaissance was leading in the fields of shipbuilding, glassware, lace, and book
printing.Thegovernmentoftherepublicwas,foralmostathousandyears,inthe
6.Robinsonvol.1p.1315(fulltext)E.W.Hulme,16L.Q.R.p.5256(discussion) Wm. H. Price, The
EnglishPatentsofMonopoly,1906,p.135141(discussion).
7.Art.1sec.8par.8.
8.K.Penning,11JPOS438.
9.H.F.Brown,Venice,1895W.C.Hazlitt,Hist.oftheVen.Rep.,1860P.Molmenti,Hist.ofVenice,transl.
byH.F.Brown,19061908S.Romanin,StoriaDocumentatadiVenezia,18531861.
712
handsofanaristocratminority,excludingbutgenerallynotexploitingthepeople.
All this sank into oblivion, gradually, after the discoveryofthesearoute
to the East, around the Cape ofGood Hope. The memory of Venice was even
more deeply obliterated after the colonization and rise of America. Previously,
however, Venice had left a definite imprint on the political, legal and cultural
institutionsofEurope.
InVeniceasthroughoutmedievalEurope,mostofcommerce and the arts was
dominated by guilds [10]. A guild was a group of masters maintaining a
monopoly over their trade [11]. They effected this by fixing prices
andstandardstradingcollectivelywithothergroups,including the taxing powers
defending their trade against masters elsewhere, and against laborers and
journeymeneverywhere and providing some security for aged and disabled
membersoftheguild.Inearlytimes,thesocialsecurityfunctionhadbeenwellin
theforeground.Lateron,theregulationofprices,standardsandwagesbecamethe
mainfunctionoftheguilds.Thislineofdevelopmentwasapproximatelythesame
in Venice as in all other countries, but reached a mature stage at an early time.
Furthermore,inVenicelikemostotherstates,otherthanEngland, the guilds were
gradually degraded to statesupervised, administrative agencies. Complete
state control was established in Alexandria about 100 B. C. in Constantinople
about800A.D.inVeniceabout1300andinFranceabout1650.
Evenwhenfullycontrolled,theguildswereofteninsharpconflictswiththe
state.Aboveall,theproblemofforeignerswascontested.LikeEngland[12],the
Republicof Venice invited strangers at an early time [13]. About 1350,
citizenshipwasthrownopentoallwhohadresided
10.Ashley,IntroductiontoEnglishEconomicHistory,1923,Vol.2,p.67123andLiterature
citedM.St.Leon,Hist.descorp.demtiers,1922G.Monticolo,Icapitolaridellearte
Veneziane,18961914Romanin,vol.Ip.61vol.2p.389391.11.H.See,EconomicalandSocial
ConditionsinFrance,1927,p.131.
12.Hulme,12L.Q.R.p.142,143.
2/36
15/12/2015
13.Molmentivol.Ip.104,120Romaninvol.Ip.122.
713
inVeniceacertainnumberofyears[14]averywiseandunusuallaw.Theguilds,
ontheotherhand,werealwaysopposedtostrangers.
The State attempted to promote the arts in a number of ways, in addition to
encouraging the entry of foreigners, and regardless of the general policy which
allowed and even forced the guilds to remain stationary. As early as1332, Venice
maintained a special privilege fund, as shown by a document of that year [15],
recitingapaymentfromthatfundtooneBartolomeoVerde,whohadpromisedto
erect a windmill. Verde had six months tocomplete his installation and to make it
work.Onfailureto do so, he had to refund the privilege money at once otherwise,
within 12 years. He had to furnish security. Verde was not necessarily the first
inventor of this kind of mills. He was probably the only one who knew how to build
them,andthegovernmenthopedtospreadandpromote this knowledge. Payments of
the same kind were repeatedly made in the fifteenth century, to persons claiming
knowledge of either established [16] or new [17] systems ofmillwork the same as to
designersofneworimprovedtypesofships[18],andprobablytomanyothers.
Suchfinancialaidwasoneoftheearlyformsofrecognitionfornewarts.Under
theguildsystem,allsuchrecognitionwasdifferent,andinsomerespectshadto be
different from what it is in a free economy [19]. Whoeverproposed new technology
needed, in the first place, a specially created power or license to infringe
existing guild monopolies by making, selling or using the new invention. Such
specially created rights were calledprivileges. They were not, originally,
exclusive rights. They were granted and revoked by the state, depending on what
wasdeemedtobeuseful.Noveltyandinventive
14.Molmentivol.1p.172G.M.ThomasinArchivioVen.vol.8p.15415613.Cecchettiin
ArchivioVen.vol.29p.29,30Romaninvol.3p.350vol.6p.450.
15.Zanettip.68,69(fulltext)B.CecchettiinArchivioVen.vol.29p.289292(discussion).
16.CecchettiinArchivioVen.vol.29p.283285.
17.CecchettiinArchivioVen.vol.29p.292.
18.Lanep.56586470109.
19.Hulme12L.Q.R.p.141150Renouardp.102105.
714
ness were investigated, at best, in an incidental way the main requirement was
utility. Disclosure took place by actual use, rather than by the filing of a written
specification in a public office. The privilege did not necessarily go to the first
inventor or importer of a new art sometimes it was thrown open to the public.
This happened, for instance, in 1301, when Venice conceded to everybody the
making of glasses for the eyes, for reading [20]such glasses had been invented
abroad,ashorttimebefore,andastatuteof1300hadexpresslyprohibitedtheglass
makersguildfrommakingorsellingthem[21].
Theepochmakinginventionoftypography[22]collidedwithguildmonopolies
3/36
15/12/2015
wherever the guilds were strong. In Florence, the guild of the copyists and
calligraphersshowed active resistance in 1474 [23] and in Augsburg, the wood
engravershadtobeboughtoff,in1480[24].Noguildresistance is recorded in the
Annals of Venice. When John of Speyer, a German printer, established
himselfon the Lagune, in 1469, he obtained, not only a privilegeor right to print,
butanactualpatent,anexclusiveright,withoutopposition[25].
This was the first patent of monopoly preserved in actual records of
Venice, so far as known at present. There is a remark in Johns patent that it
wasusualtograntsuchmonopoliesbutnoearliergrantofthiskindisknown,
atpresent.Itmaybenotedinpassingthatsuchausualprocedure,inVenice,
hadtheforceofcustomarylaworcommonlaw[26].
A few years later this customary law was. confirmed by a written
pronouncement [27], in the nature of a statuteor administrative decree. This was
the first written patent law known. It preceded the English Statute
ofMonopoliesby150years.Itwasmoremodern,inthat
20.Cecchetti,Vet.Ven.,p.13.
21.CecchettiinAtti18712p.16923.
22.J.C.Oswald,AHistoryofPrinting,1928.
23.Brownp.34.
24.Oswaldp.50533145.
25.Below,p.750.
26.E.Besta,Atti18967p.404419.
27.Below,p.750.
715
itprovidedforpatentsasamatterofrightandgeneralprinciple,notmerelyofroyal
favor.
It seems that, by custom and usage in Venice, inventions were officially
examined to some extent, before a patent was granted. Experts were heard [28].
The procedure was probably based on interviews rather than on a record and
specificationinwriting.Thisisunderstandable,sincethebulkofthepatentbusiness
wassmall.Asubstantialnumberofpatentsandnumerouscopyrightsweregrantedin
Venice between 1500 and 1550. In some patents, like that of Andrea Brugone for
printinginredandblack,in1568theauthorityfounditnecessarytosay:Whilewehave
notseenanyplantormodelinthismatter,solongastheapplicantachieveswhathe
claims, be it granted etc. [29]. Apparently a guild whose preexisting monopoly
wasaffectedhadarighttobeheard.FransescoZamberlan,whoobtainedapatent
for certain types of mirrors in 1572, had to prove to the guild how new they were
[30].Thispractice,probablyofveryearlyoriginandstemmingfromthetimeswhen
theguildshadbeenstrong,remainedineffectuntilthefalloftherepublic,asshownby
instancesofguildoppositioninVeniceattheendoftheeighteenthcentury[31].
When novelty seemed questionable, a patent was not necessarily denied,
although this happened, for instance, to Girolamo Magagnati, who claimed a new
4/36
15/12/2015
invention, made by himself, relating to glass and mirrors, in1554 [32].

Sometimesaremarkofcautionwasaddedforinstance,whenJacopoT.Ungaroin1513
claimedtheusefulandingeniousinventionofprintingmusicalnotation,this
was conceded as applied for, withoutprejudice to concessions which may perhaps
havebeen made before [33]. A patent for musical notation had previously been
issuedtoOttavianodeiPetrucci[34].
28.Brown,p.98.
29.Brown,p.98.
30..Cecchetti,Vet.Ven.,p.25,26.
31.Cecchetti,Vet.Ven.,p.17,30,31.
32.Cecchetti,Vet.Ven.,p.26.
33.Stolfi,Appendix,No.44(fulltext).
716
Morefrequently,apatentorcopyrightwasgrantedforashorterperiodthan
appliedfor[35]accordingtoprinciplesnolongerknownindetail.
Undoubtedly,patentabilitywasnotlostuponpublicuse,bytheinventor,of
the invention. In fact it seemsfromthewordingofthepatentsthatsomeuse,and
proofofutility,precededthepatentgrantasamatterofcourse.
Twoearlyinstancesofpatentorcopyrightenforcementareknown.In1499,
Antonio Moretto, holder of a copyright of 1498 [36] obtained a decree of the
Council of Ten, the supreme authority of the republic, enjoining everybody that
his copyright should be respected [37] In 1502, Aldus Manutius, the holder of a
patent of 1495 [38] obtained a similar decree [39], in support of his interests
inVeniceaswellasintherepublicofFlorence,andatLyons,France.
Inherentpropertyrightsinaninvention,asidefromtheadministrativegrant
bythestate,werenotofficiallyrecognized,sofarasthedocumentsshow.Eventhe
patents of the earliest time were not always treated as inheritable property, but
rather as strictly personal rights. This is illustrated by the fact that upon the
prematuredeathofJohnofSpeyer,in1470,anotationwasaddedtohisprivilege,in
thebookofrecords:Invalid,themasterandauthordied[40].Hisbrotherandheir
Wendelin continued his business, but had no benefit of the unexpired part of the
patent term. Again, in 1517, the patent of Aldus was made available to the
public, upon hisdeath [41], although his firm continued. On the other hand, in
1513,apatentofDemocritoTerracina,relatingtoArabicprint,wastransferredto
hisnephewsandheirs[42].
Noexpresslicensecontractsareknownfromthisearlytime.Howeverthereis
evidence that at least oral contracts must have been made. Aldus allowed
certain
35.Fulinp.90.
36.Fulin,Appendix,No.86.
5/36
15/12/2015
39.Stolfi,Appendix,No.3,41,42(fulltext)Fulin,Appendix,No.126.
40.Brownp.10Fulinp.89.
41.Fulin,Appendix,No.213(fulltext).
42.Brownp.42.
717
printers to use his patented style of greek and italic type [43], while
complainingbitterlyofinfringementbyothers[44].
In general it appears that the early Venetian printers operated in rather
modern ways. They opened establishments in other cities [45] and took out
copyrightsonaninternationalscale[46].Forthefirsteightyyears,theywere
free from guild interference and state regulation, and operated in purely
capitalistic ways. They even developed toward the point where the continuity of
technological development the opposite of guild stability was appreciated, as
shownforinstancebythefactthatatleastoneoftheseprinters,RocchoBonicello,
patented a plurality of successive improvements on printing frames, 1516 and
1551[47].
The exact nature of some of the early patents is doubtful, due to the lack of
complete details. As to John of Speyer, it is contested [48] whether he was
recognizedasfirst importer of the whole art of typography [49], or as inventor
ofimprovements[50].ThepatenttoAldus,coveringgreekanditalictypes,maybe
considered as a design patent at least it is a borderline case if classified as
a mechanical invention. Other patents were more clearlymechanical. Some of
thesewerementionedabove.Wemayadd:apatenttoNicoloVlastos,apartnerof
Aldus,in 1498, for greek letter types united with their accents [51] that is,
probably,withprovisionforseparateinsertionoftheaccents,reducingthenumberof
necessarytypesfromseveralhundredtoafewdozens.Furtherasomewhatsimilar
patent to Daniel Bomberg for Hebrew types with vowel signs [52]. Ugo da Carpi
tookoutapatentin1516forwoodcuttinginchiaroscuro[53],andAntonio
43.Brownp.4345.
44.Brownp.48.
45.Brownp.44etc.Oswaldp.105,1123121etc.
46.Stolfip.20.
47.Brownp.98.
48.Brownp.6,7.
49.TherehasbeenintroducedbyJohn
50.ItismademorecelebratedandfrequentbyJohn
51.Brownp.55.
52.Brownp.98.
53.Brownp.98,103.
718
Guardano obtained one in 1538 for a new method of printing music [54]. In
6/36
15/12/2015
15934 we find a patent to Galileo Galilei, covering a pump and water distributing
system[55].Stillotherpatentsareknowntohaveissuedtoglassmakersin1507
[56],1719[57],and1739[58].Thelastofthese,relatingtoamaterialtoimprovethe
glass mixture, was revoked when a competitor of the patentee brought proof that
noveltywaslacking[59].Stillfurtherdetailsprobablycouldbefound,eitherinthe
original records in Venice, if they are still in existence after the second world war, or
inbooksonthevariousartsthatflourishedinVenice.
As mentioned, Venice granted copyrights as well aspatents.Around1500,
copyrightsweregrantedindiscriminately,fornewandoldbooks.Gradually,itwas
realizedthatitwasanecessaryconditionthatsomethingwasinnovatedforthe
useofthescholars[60].In1517,ageneralcopyrightstatutewasenacted[61]the
first of its kind. It required a new book, just as the patent law of 1474 had
required a new invention. Trade marks were never officially recognized by the
republicofVenicethatsuchamarkmayconstituteaninterestworthyofprotection
was not generally understood as yet, and was appreciated only by originators of
trade marks, like Aldus [62]. Like later in England [63], patents
developedpriortotrademarks.
It is remarkable that an embryonic recognition of intellectual property should
appear in those early times. A statute. of 1545 [64] pointed in this way. It
supported theauthor, as against the publisher and it put the authors heir on a par
with the author himself. If Venice had not started to decline, about this time, it
couldbefairlyas
54.Brownp.108.
55.Federico,8JPOS576(fulltext).
56.B.Cecchetti,Vet.Ven.p.26.
59.B.Cecchetti,Vet.Ven.p.33..
61.Stolfip.26Brown,Appendix1,No.1(fulltext).
62.F.I.Schechter,TheHist.FoundationsoftheLawRel.toTradeMarks,1925,p.6377.
63.Schechterp.101145.
64.Below,p.750.
719
sumed that a law fully recognizing intellectual property in inventions and other
creationswouldhavebeenenacted,andtakenoverbyothercountries.
Actually, Venice declined, commercially and spiritually. The beginnings of
copyright were stifled when ChurchandStatecensorshiptookover[65].In1548,
theprinterswereforcedintothestraightjacketofastatecontrolledguild [66], for
moreconvenientcensorship,asidefromageneralpolicingofthetrade,inVenice
[67]aselsewhere[68].
When Venice had been strong, streams of Europeans and Asiatics had
7/36
15/12/2015
converged in that cosmopolitan center. With her decline, a general movement in

the opposite direction became more pronounced. It brought newtechnology,
togetherwiththeinstitutionofindividualpatentmonopolies,totheotherstates
of Italy and Europe. In most places, the patent system was adopted almost
exactly as developed in Venice. Florence is said to have added a system of
yearly taxes on patents[69]. All of the basic patent rules developed in Venice
were preserved in the subsequent systems, down to and including our present
Americansystem.
3.PatentsundertheMercantileSystem.
For some time, France absorbed a major share of the migration of artizans
from Venice, and profited by it. The night of St. Bartholomew, in 1572, and the
extremereligious intolerance that prevailed in France until the revolution, forced
thegreaternumberofskilledartizansandinventorstofleetoEngland,Hollandand
Germany, robbing France of greater potentialities than a patentsystem could
create. The patent system was there, and there was a distinct readiness, on the
part of the Crown, to encourage inventions but inventors, as human beings, were
deterredratherthanattracted.
65.Stolfip.2730.
66.Stolfip.28Brownp.81toendAppendix1,No.11Appendix3.
67.Brown,Appendix4.
68.Sto1fip.3165.
69.Luzzatop.27.
720
Inventions were officially encouraged in almost the same manner as in
Venice.Ofcourse,inVenice,themonarchwasonlyapuppetofthenobility.In
France,the nobility fought a losing battle with the crown, frequently siding with
the guilds. In England, a somewhat similar battle resulted in manifold
compromises, with the overall result that guild monopolies disappearedsooner
whilenobilityandmonarchyprevailedlonger,andafreeeconomywasestablished
sooner.BothinEngland and in France, the crown gradually adopted thesystems
thatthenobilityhadusedsuccessfullyinVenice.Thesumtotalofthesesystemsis
knownasMercantilism.[70]
The mercantile policy as to foreign trade was mainly directed towards an
excessofnationalexportsovernationalimports.Stateregulatedmanufacturesand
commerce were envisaged to this end. Interiorly, the system consisted mainly in
graftingstatecontrolupontheexisting guild organization. Many administrative
tools of the mercantile system were imported from Italy. Theprivilege of
monopolywasoneofthem.PatentsareaneminentlyMercantilisticmeasure.
Infollowingthesepolicies,thecrownwasofteninconflictwiththeguilds,
inmajorquestionsoftaxation,religion,andforeignpolicy.Similarlyaconflict
was everpresent in the relatively remote field of new inventions. Mercantilism
8/36
15/12/2015
favoredsomeinnovations[71],bypatentsandotherwise.Theguildsweregenerally
opposed.AsinVenice,inventorsrequiredastateguaranteedlicense to use their
inventions,infringingsomeguildmonopolies.
Itappearsthatthegeneralpatternfortheearlyprivilegesystemwasthesame
at all places: new technology was offered to the state the state frequently was
well disposed towards it the guilds generally opposed itwhen a. privilege was
granted it was often by compromise with the guild. In Venice, the guilds had
started
70.E.F.Heckscher,Mercantilism,1935,2vols.
71.Heckschervol.1p.141,170.
721
to decline at .a relatively early time, and thus we find only some traces of such
compromise procedures, in the surviving records. In France, a more complete
picturewaspreserved.
The privilege procedure of France involved a proceeding before the
Parlement de Paris. The local parliaments of France, and mainly that of Paris,
represent
edtheclergyandnobility[72].Theyhadexercisedconsiderablelegislative,
administrative and judicial power, in the thirteenth .century. Practically
throughouttheoldregime,whichendedin1789,thelaws,decrees,andotherlegalacts
of the king, including patents, had to be registered by the Parlement de Paris, in
order to acquire bindingforce.Startinginthefifteenthcentury,the,exponentsof
royal absolutism began to reduce the parliamentstomererubberstamps,sometimes
usingmeasuressuch as banishment or imprisonment of the parliament as a whole.
However, the theory and institution of parliamentary registration prevailed until
theend.
In1536,FrancisIofFranceoccupiedPiemont,oneofthehighlycivilized
states of northern Italy. In the same year, Etienne Turquetti from Piemont
obtained a privilege for the production of silk from the municipalgovernment of
Lyons in France, with the consent of the king [73]. Previous attempts had been
made, for almost a hundred years, to transplant , this art into France in fact,
guilds of silkmakers had been created in other French towns, starting in. 1466.
Theseearlierattemptshadfailed.Turquettisprivilegecallshimtheinventor
of an art. As in the case of John of Speyer, it isquestionablewhetherhisactual
claim went to the invention of a new, improved system of organizing this
complicated field, or to the introduction of a preexisting system from abroad.
Lyons gave Turquetti less than acomplete monopoly. It gave him the right,
apparently for his life, to collect royalties from all silk makers who would newly
establishthemselvesinLyons.Italsogave
72.Fleckschervol.1p.156F.AubertinRevueHist.deDroitFr.etEtr.,1905,1906,1912,1916,1917.
73.Below,p.751.
722
9/36
15/12/2015
him, and the foreign workers whom he imported, loans, exemption from taxes, and
other aid. His privilege contained elements of the early, nonexclusive type, but it
approachedthescopeofamonopolypatentbyvirtueoftherighttocollectroyalties.
The official papers say that Turquetti lived to see 12,000 persons employed in the
industrythathehadcreated.
The first regular monopoly patent in Francewas granted in 1551, to another
Italian,ThesesMutiofromBologna,forglasswareaccordingtothemannerofVenice
[74].Inthesameyear,wealsofindapatentofmonopolytoaFrenchinventor,Abel
Foullon[75].
Startingwiththesepatentsof1551,considerabledetailsareknownaboutpatents
andpatentprocedureinFrance,andwefindthatthepatentprocedureatthatearlytime
alreadywasadifferentiatedanddetailedone:Thusitisprobablethatindividualpatent
privilegesofsomekindwereknownandusedbefore.However,itisimprobablethat
they had monopoly character before and even around 1536, except possibly in some
particularlyimportantcaseslikeTurquettis.Theearliestlegalimportmonopoliesof
England, and. probably of France, were collective rights, granted by Parliament to
importersguilds,asagainstdomesticguilds[76]anindividualimportmonopolywas
declared void in 1362 [77]. Furthermore we shall find that the French procedure
existing in 1551 provided good machinery only for the setting up of the earlier,
nonexclusive privileges, based on compromises between a guild, an inventor or
importer, and the crown. Finally it seems that other European countries made
inventors privileges exclusive about this same time. In Germany, monopoly patents
turnedupabout1545[78].Englandlearntthesameinstitutionin1559from
74.Below,p.751,
75.lsorep.104.
76.Ashley,vol.2p.102113.
77.SeethecasecitedinDarcyv.Allein,1602,11CokeR.84b.
78.R.MeldauascitedbyIsorep.105.NotitleisgivenbyIsore.Probablydetailscanbefoundin
R.Meldau, Hauptwurzeln des D. Pat. R.,inV.D.I.Arb.Gem.TechnikGeschichte,Schriften
Reihe,Vol.26,1937.Iwasunabletogetthisbook.
723
Giacomo Aconcio, a fortifications engineer from Trent, better known as a
humanistandfighterfortolerance[79].
We may assume that Turquetti, Mutio and Aconcio knew the institution of
monopoly patents from the practice of Venice, which had spread to the rest of Italy,
ratherthanthattheyinventedthesystemthemselves,orfounditexistingintheirnew
domiciles.However,theVenetiansystemwasnotadoptedwithoutchange.Thefirst
change was that it merged with the existing local system of nonexclusive privileges.
The French patent grants of the sixteenth century conveyed to the patentee the
privilegetooperateaccordingtohisinvention[80],togetherwiththenewfeaturethat
allotherswereprohibitedfromcopyinghismethods[81].
Between 1550 and 1600, patents of monopoly were granted in France at the
10/36
15/12/2015
averagerateofoneeverytwoyears[82].Forcomparison,wefindthatEngland,inthe
sameperiod,issuedaboutonepatentofmonopolyperyear[83]orpossiblysomemore
[84].Thisincludes,ofcourse,thevariousillegalpatentswhichfinallygaverisetothe
StatuteofMonopolies.ThesmallernumberofpatentsinFrancewasprobablyaresult
of two facts: fewer inventors appeared in this intolerant kingdom at the same time,
there was a more thorough and continuous parliamentary interference with the free
grantingofundeservedmonopolies.
While Mutios patent, as granted by the king in 1551, was to run for ten years
[85],wefindthatitwasregisteredbytheParlementdeParisforonlyfiveyears[86].
Infrequentcases,untiltherevolution,patenttermswereshortenedbytheParlement
modificationswereimposed,particularlyinfavorofguilds[87]andsometimesthe
79. D. S. Davies, 50 L. Q. R. p. 99 and Literature cited Erich Hassinger, Studien zu James
Acontius,1934,p.120.
80.Isorep.106,107.
81.Isorep.114.
82.Isorep.,104.
83.Hulme,16L.Q.R.p.52.
84.Davies.,150,L.Q.R.p.86.
85.Below,p.751.
86.Isorep.101.
87.Isorep.103,118,120MalapertG.Fagniez,LEconomieSocialedelaFrancesousHenriIV,
1897p.77163.
724
royal patent was altogether denied by the Parlement [88]. Plainly,wehaveherea
patentsystemwithoppositionproceedings,ofamedievaltype.
BeforetheParlementobtainedachancetoseeapatentapplication,anexparte
proceeding took place. This was centered at the royal court. The king, through his
council, issued a letter of exclusive privilege to the alleged importer or inventor of a
new art or machine. In this stage, probably, political support was as essential as a
meritoriousinvention.
Infact,itisnotknownthatthecrownexaminedthemeritsofanapplicationat
all, about 1536 and possibly for hundred years thereafter. It is possible that the king
was .motivated merely by the representations of some nobleman, like the one who
presentedand.supportedMutio.However,in1666,ColbertestablishedtheAcademie
desSciences,followingtheexampleofvariousItalianacademiesfoundedinthe15th
and16thcenturies,whichinturnhadbeenmodelledafterancientexamples.InFrance
[89]aswellasinEngland[90]thekingsnowstartedtoconsulttheirscientificadvisers,
on patent applications, thereby adding the system of official examination to the pre
existing opposition practice. In 1699, the French academy received regulations, by a
.decreeoftheking,whichcontainedthefirstwrittenlaw,anywhere,incorporatingan
examinationsystem[91].
Thebasicdefectofthislawwasmerelythatitwasnotobligatory.Whileitwas
11/36
15/12/2015
usualforthekingscouncilandalsofortheParlementtoconsulttheacademy,nosuch
consultationwasstrictlynecessaryforeither[92].
Whena.royalletterofprivilegehadbeengranted,anattorneypresentedittothe
Parlement.SpecialexaminerswerethenappointedbytheParlement,toinvestigatethe
value of the invention, in consultation with the various officers of the crown who
wereincharge
88.Isorep.121.
89.HistoriedelAcademie,1699,p.119,148,159etc.
90.Davies,50L.Q.R.p.106108.
91.Below,p.752.
92.Isorep.125.
725
of guilds, commerce and taxes [93]. While the academy scrutinized novelty and
utilityoftheinvention,theParlementwasmostinterestedinthecompetitivechances
andprospectivetaxvalueoftheproposedenterprise,tobebasedontheprivilege[94]
in other words, the future commercial success of the invention was discussed in this
oppositionprocedure.Thisillconceivedsystemremainedineffectuntiltherevolution.
Apaper.publishedintherevolutionaryeraspeaksofthethenexistingsystemofpatent
examinationbythelearnedbodiesandfiscalaidsitstatesthatsuchanexamination
necessarily leads to corruption [95]. We know now that this is not necessarily true.
Thetruefaultofthesystemwasthatitgaveconsiderationtothecommercialchances
thetechnicalmeritsofinventionsshouldhavebeenscrutinizedexclusively.
Thetermsofthepatents,asregisteredbytheParlement,variedbetween5and30
years[96].In1762,astatutefixedthetermat15years[97].
The patents issued after 1551 had property character [98]. Sometimes they
containedanexpressgranttotheinventor,hisheirsandassigns[99].Theveryearliest
patent in France, as mentioned, had been a personal grant for the lifetime of the
patentee, similar to the patent of Aldus and others, in Venice also similar to the still
earlier, nonexclusive privileges, which in all probability had been personal and not
transferable,accordingtothegeneralcivillawjurisprudenceofspecialprivileges.
Thestatuteof1762limitedpatenttransfers,intheinterestofpromptutilization
ofpatents[100].Mercantilismhadinheritedtheprincipleofstrictregulationfromthe
guildsthusitisnotsurprisingthatpatentproperty,
93.Isorep.120,121HeckscherVol.1p.152155.
94.Isorep.122.
95DeBoufflers,Reportof1790,inFrenchPatentReports,FirstSeries.Vol.Ip.5774(fulltext).
96.Isore,p.115.
97.Below,p.753.
98.Isorep.I09.
99.Isorep.114.
100.Below,p.753,754.
726
12/36
15/12/2015
like other property, was impressed with social obligations, and subjected to
administrative interferences. The practice had started in Venice [101] it continued
underthekingofEngland[102],thekingofFrance[103],andtheParlementdeParis
[104].Sometimesthepriceatwhichthepatenteecouldsellhisgoods[105]wasfixed
by the king or added by the Parlement. Compulsory licenses [106] and working
obligations [107] were known. The statute of 1762 provided generally that a patent
shouldlapseifthepatentee,foroneyear,hadattempted,withoutsuccess,toputitto
use,orhadfailedtouseitatallsubjecttoarightofthepatenteetoshowgoodcauses.
[108]
Our main source for these details is a record of, parliamentaryregistrations,
kept by the councillor LeNain and his successors [109] along with the patent
drawings and specifications, approved by the academy between 1666 and 1735,
which were reconstructed by M. Gallonon the basis of the models preserved by the
academy [110]. These records Gallon and LeNain constitute, respectively, a Patent
GazetteandasetofCommissionersDecisionsundertheoldregimeofFrance.
They reflect a patent system containing all basic elements of our present one
including medieval reminiscences, such as the examination as to utility and
commercial success and omitting only one essential feature the legal right of an
inventortoclaimforapatent.Thisright,andsomewhatmorethanit,grewupinthe
Frenchlawoftheprerevolutionaryera,1700to1789,startingwitharelativelysmall
and unobtrusive development in the city of Lyons. It was here that inventions were
recognizedasinherentproperty,notmerelysubjectsofadministrativegrantsthatcould
begivenor
101.Brownp.57.
102.Davies,50L.Q.R.p.100105.
103.Isorep.102.
104.Isorep.112,119.
105.Isorep.III.
106.Isorep.102,I11.
107.Isorep.116.
108.Below,p.753,754.
109..ThroughIsore.
110.MachinesetInventionsApprouveesparlAcaclemie,7vols.,1735to1777.
727
refused.Thisrecognitionwasincorporatedinstatutes,reflecting a legal concept,
firstbyimplication,andlaterinexpressandevenemphaticterms.
4.IntellectualPropertyinFrance.
Lyons is one of the oldest and largest trading centers of Europe. Located
between Paris and Marseilles, it handles most of the goods moving between the
MediterraneanandtherichcountryofFrance.Thusitisunderstandablethatthistown
precededtherestofFranceinadoptingthesystemofmonopolypatents,andagain,in
13/36
15/12/2015
developinganewdoctrineofindustrialproperty.
For centuries before 1711, the year of the first design property statute [111],
embroidered silk from Italy and the East, largely imported through Venice, for the
clergy,thenoblesandthekings,hadbeenamongthechiefstaplessoldandboughtin
Lyons[112].Thedomesticproductionofsilk,afterTurquettisprivilegedenterpriseof
1536,hadhardandeasytimesinsuccession,andfinally,underLouisXIV,developed
into one of the greatest textile industries of the world. The other local industry of
importance,infactthelargestofall,wasprintingandpublishing[113].This,too,had
variouscontactswithVeniceandtheothercentersofItaliancivilization[114].
Lyonswasavilledeloi,thatis,atownwherethelocalguildsystemwassoon
and thoroughly integrated with the local government, while mutual independence of
guild and government, for a long time, was characteristic of other towns, the villes
:jures[115]. This integrated guild system of Lyons reached maturity at a relatively
earlytime.Thecapitalistsystemfollowedwhentheguildsdeclined,inLyonsaswell
asLondonandotherindustrializedplaces.
TheorganizationofthesilkindustryinLyonswasbasedonhomework.Large
concerns,ownedbymastermerchants,letthespinning,weavingandembroidering
111.Below,p.752.
112.A.Kleinclausz,Ilist.deLyon,1939,vol.1,p.504Pouilletp.13.
113.Kleinclauszp.506.
114.Oswaldp.121alsoseeFootnoteNo.39.
115.Heckscherp.142151Kleinclauszp.471,503.
728
worktoworkingmasters,whointurnemployedjourneymenandapprentices.The
mastermerchantsalsoemployedspecialdesigners,someofwhom,inthecourseofthe
years, acquired fame and wealth [116]. There was keen competition between the
mastermerchantsofLyonsandthoseofotherplacesinFrance.Moreoveritseemsthat
competition must have been lively, and not always fair, among the local master
merchants,judgingfromtheearlydesignpropertystatutes[117].
In evaluating these statutes, in connection with the development of patent laws
andconcepts,wemustconsiderthattheideaofstealingorselling,asapplied,toan
incorporealandevenunprivilegeddesign,wasentirelynewtothelegalarsenalofthe
time.Hereitwasclearlyimpliedthatsuchdesignshavepropertycharacter.Withthis
inmind,wemaycallthesestatutesrevolutionary.
Thus it is quite understandable why several statutes of the kingdom of France
were necessary to fully elaborate and implement the idea. There were five such
statutes. That of 1711 [118] was supplemented by one of 1737, adding stronger
penalties [119]. These added penalties were suspended by an act of 1739 [120].
Positiveandsubstantiveadditionsweremadebytheactsof1744and1787[121].
The rudimentary provision of 1711 had been directed against the breach of a
fiduciaryrelationshipinvolvingdesignproperty.Thisreappearedinthelateracts.The
14/36
15/12/2015
additionof1744consistedinageneralprovisionagainstviolationofdesignproperty,
regardless of fiduciary relationships. The final act of 1787 added the necessary
administrative machinery, similar to that in force for mechanical patents, for
establishing,insafemanner,thesubjectsofdesigninventions.Itexpresslyreferred
todesignproperty.Thistermwasnew
116.Pouilletp.3.
117.Below,p.752.
118.Below,p.752.
119.Pouilletp.4.
120.Pouilletp.4.
121.Below,p.752,755.
729
nostatuteofanycountryhadusedit,oranyequivalentofit,sofarasweknow.The
actualconcept,ofcourse,goesbacktothestatutesof1711and1744.
Theactof1744protecteddesignseitheroldornew,withouttimelimitation.
This was repeated in Article 3 of the act of 1787, while Article 1 of the same act
limitedthedesignpropertytonewdesigns,andtoatermof15years.Obviously,the
legislatorhadnoclearanswertothequestionwhyadesigninvention,oranyinvention,
can be property, and the right can still be limited in time, and expire as to old
matter.Incivillaw,anestatelimitedtoatermofyearsisgenerallydistinguishedfrom
property. Thus a bad flaw remained, after the broad, official recognition of design
property but historically, the important thing is that this property was recognized in
principle.
Thiswas,atthesametime,thefirststatutoryacknowledgmentofalegalclaim
forprotectionfornewinventions.Inthisrespect,theFrenchactof1787wentbeyond
theAmericanpatentlawof1790,andsubsequentacts,whichmerelystated,inexpress
terms,thatitshallbelawfulforthestatetoissueapatent,leavingittothecourtsto
say that the issuing of a patent, under proper conditions, is a duty of the state the
natureofthisdutybeingavagueanduncertainthing.
The series of design property acts had originated with the silkmanufacturing
guild,notwiththegovernment.Itmayappearsurprisingthat,ofallpossiblegroupsa
guildshouldhaveinstigatedalegaldevelopmentthatculminatedintherecognitionof
individual,intellectualproperty.However,theprocesscanbeexplained.Theguilds,
asholdersofcollectivemonopolies,wereopposedtooutsideinterferenceratherthanto
innovationsassuch[122].Whiletheyinherentlywerenotafertileculturegroundfor
newdevelopments,theydidnotnecessarilycondemndevelopmentassuch,whenitdid
grow up among the members themselves. Most guilds were also far from any
communistideal,althoughtheyexercisedalevellinginfluenceandprohibitedexcessive
competitionbetweenthemastersoftheguild.Therefore,ifone
122.Heckscher,p.170176Schechterp.4047PiolaCasellip.7.
730
15/36
15/12/2015
master made and used a new design that proved particularly successful he was quite
abletobecomemoreprosperousthanothersandhedidnotshareitwiththegroup.If
anothercopiedthedesign,without,his.consent,thisotherwasapttobecalledbeforea
guild tribunal. It is possible and even probable that disputes came up occasionally,
involvingtheinfringementofintangibleinterestsbasedonnewtechnology.Somesuch
instancesareactuallyknown[123].Similardisputescameupintheearlydevelopment
oftrademarkrights[124].However,sincetheycamebeforethetribunalsoftheguild,
theywerenotlikelytobeknowninthelawoftheland,sofarasthevillesjureswere
concerned..
Inthevillesdeloi,aguildrulewasinherentlyaruleoflaw.Thisishowthefirst
designpropertystatutesbecamethelawofLyons.Inviewofthenationalimportance
ofthislocaltradetheywereevensanctionedbylawsofnationalauthority.Thefirst
lawshadonlylocalscope,butthefinalonewaseffectivethroughoutFrance,aswellas
basedonthenationallegislativepower.
Thecrown,insanctioningthelawsof1711and1744,undoubtedlydidnotintend
to recognize industrial property in a broad sense. The new expression stealing or
sellingadesignpassedby,unnoticedbythelawofficersofthemercantilesystem.
It .merely reflected, on a national scale, an unofficially existing tendency of thought.
Theoppositetrendwasstillprevailingatcourt.Infact,aslateas1776,thekingcalled
copyrightprivilegesamerematterofgracefoundedonjustice[125].Alawof1777,
echoing this royal compromise proposal, expressed itself against the notion that
privileges could be a matter of claims or.property, but tried to apply equitable
principlestothegranting.ofprivileges[126].ItisaningrainednotionofMercantilism,
incidentally not yet overcome in America, that while inventions are generally useful
theydifferfromproperty
123.13.F.HyslopinAm.Hist.Rev.139P.267Pouillet13:1013.
124.Schechterp.108120.
125.Stolfip.86.
126.Blancp.237239(fulltext)Stolfip.87.
731
inthattheymayormaynotbeprotectedbythelaws,asthestateseesfit.
Ontheotherhand,fromthestandpointofthesilkmakersofLyons,in1711and
1744,designinventionswereproperty,basedonachievement.Likeallotherproperty
they were surely subject to farreaching social limitations by the guild and state but
theywerepropertynevertheless.TheconsulsofLyonsexpressedthisviewinafurther
ordinanceof1778,promptlyaftertheconservativecopyrightlawsof1777[127].The
textilemanufacturersofotherplacesinFrancejoined,indemandingrecognitionofthis
property[128].
Before this standpoint could be fully and expressly sanctioned, by the law of
1787,AbsolutismandMercantilismhadtobebrokendowntoalargeextent.Thiswas
actuallydonenotbytheguilds,butbyaphilosophicalschoolofthoughtthatrefusedto
accepttheexistingorderofthingsasfinal.
16/36
15/12/2015
Denis Diderot was the most outstanding representative of this school. His
Letter on the Blind, published in 1749, was a smashing attack on the clerico
monarchicalsystem.ItnettedDiderotthreemonthsinprison.Between1751and1772
hepublishedandlargelywrotethefamousGreatEncyclopedia.Thisworktakesfor
grantedthejusticeofreligioustoleranceandspeculativefreedom.Itassertsindistinct
termsthedemocraticdoctrineItisoneunbrokenprocessofexaltationofscientific
knowledgeontheonehandandpacificindustryontheother.[129}
OneofthesecretsbehindDiderotsultimate,althoughbelatedsuccesswasthat
tohim,theking,thecensorsandtheguildswerequitedead.Thismadehiswritings
peculiarly free from all excitement of the day. It enabled him to endorse the good
pointseveninaninstitutionoftheoldregime.
127.Pouilletp.5,6.
128.Pouilletp.6.
129.EncyclopediaBritannica,Diderot.
732
HisLetteronthePublishingTrade[130]wasadefenseofprivileges.Itwas
occasionedbytheaffairLaFontaine[131].Thekingscouncilhadissuedaprivilegeto
LaFontaines grandchildren, for the books of this famous poet, although LaFontaine
himselfhadreceivedsuchaprivilegebefore,andhadsoldittoapublisher,whowas
still in possession of it. The publishers guild felt that the arbitrary procedure of the
crown was apt to make privileges worthless, and to result in final abolition of all
privileges. They entrusted their case to Diderot, the declared enemy of monopolies.
Diderot accepted. In his Letter, he traced the history of publishers privileges in
France,andjustifiedthem.TheLetterwasconstructivethroughout.Itarguedforthe
originalprivilegeoftheelderLaFontaine,notagainstthenewonetohisdescendants.
Whilewrittenin1767,itwasdirectedtoapublicof1787and1789anditreachedthat
public.
Withoutthisdefense,copyrightsandpatentsmighthavedisappeared.Itwasnot
apparent to all that the fall of Mercantilism had to be accompanied by a triumph of
intellectual property. Such property had been asserted before, implicitly in the early
statutesofVeniceandLyons,andevenexplicitlyintreatisesandopinions[131a].It
was left to Diderot to incorporate the doctrine of intellectual property in the broader
conceptsofafreesociety.
Othersdidthenecessarybreakingdownandclearingout.Startingabout1740,
MercantilismwasstronglyattackedbythefollowersofQuesnay,thekingsphysician,
whocalledthemselvesPhysiocrats.Theypostulatedasupremacyofhithertoneglected
agriculture over the manufactures also, judicial protection of property over
administrativeregulationandabuseandnationalwealthathomeoverfinancialgainby
export.Atfirstthephysiocraticschoolgainedpartialrecognitionbythe
130.Below,p.754.
131.Stolfi,p.85.
131a.ForinstanceBeyer,KurzerBerichtvondernuetzlichenBuchhand
lung,1690J.FLvon
17/36
15/12/2015
Berger,ElectaDisceptationurn,1706,etc.
733
kingitprecipitatedtheendoftheguilds,monarchy,andthemercantilesystem[132].
While they considered manufacture as a matter of secondary importance, the
Physiocrats in general were not opposed to it, and mainly not to inventions and
discoveries.Quesnaywascarefultoassignlogicalplaces,inhissomewhatdogmatic
system,toartisansingeneral,andtoprivilegedinventorsinparticular[133].
HispupilTurgotbecamecomptrollergeneralofFrancein1774,underthenew
andfeeblekingLouisXVI.InthepreambleofhisfamousEdictofFebruary5,1776,
abolishingtheguilds,heemphasizedtherightsofinventors,asagainsttheStationary
characteroftheguilds[134].
Turgot failed the edict was revoked, and he was dismissed, on May 12, 1776.
However, the stranglehold of Mercantilism had been broken. While statecontrolled
guilds returned, in August 1776, they were almost as lame as the subsequent act
supporting them [135]. Inventors needed no aid against guilds any more. While the
kingcalledaprivilegeagracefoundedonjustice,popularopinionhadcometosee
justicealonebehindsuchagrant.
Thiswasmerelyevidencedbytheactof1787,relatingtodesignproperty.The
actualtransitioninthelegalthinkingonpatentshadstartedabout1711andhadbecome
irresistibleafterDiderotsLetterof1767.
On July 14, 1789 the people of Paris stormed the Bastille, and ended the old
regime.Thistime,theguildsandtheMercantilesystemdisappearedforgood.
Therefollowedtheactof1790,onpatents,whichtookthelaststeptocomplete
the development of 17111767 and 1787. It applied the principles of industrial
property, with administrative registration, to inventions in general. It restated this
principleinstrongertermsprobablythestrongesttermsusedbyanysuchlawatany
time.
132.M.Beer,AnInquiryintoPhysiocracy,1939,p.69,70See,p.158161.
133.F.Quesnay,DialogueontheWorkofArtisans,1766.
134.Below,p.754.
135.Below,p.755.1313Below,p.756.
734
Now, the idea of intellectual property gained recognition in a great part of the
world.
Theactof1790sufferedfromthesame.defectasthatof1787itfailedtomake
it clear why a right, called a property right, should be limited in time. Another flaw
was that the act abolished the old examination system entirely. There was some
oppositiononthispoint,duringthedebatesconcerningthisact[137].
The complete recognition of intellectual property lasted only a few years, in
France.ThefirststepawaywasmadewhentheConstitutionoftheyearIII,thatis,
18/36
15/12/2015
1795, provided in Article 357: The law shall provide for the recompensation of
inventors or for the maintenance of the exclusive property of their discoveries and
productions[138].Theideaofrecompensation,otherwisethanbytheexclusiveright,
was plainly a return to the earliest forms of privileges. This idea was supported by
AlexanderHamiltoninAmerica[139],andwasstronglyurged,aboutthemiddleofthe
nineteenthcentury,byMichelChevalierinFrance[140]andMacfieinEngland[141]
however,itfailedtodisplacethesystemofmonopolypatents.
A more decisive step away from the doctrine of intellectual property was done
whenRenouard[142]andOlin
Picard[143],thethenrecognizedauthoritiesonpatent,
and copyrights, declared themselves against this doctrine for the reason that the
necessarylimitedcharacteroftheauthorsandinventorsrightscouldnotbereconciled
withtheideaofproperty.Asaresultofsuchviews,thenewFrenchpatentlawof1844
avoided all reference to intellectual property. Finally, in 1887, the highest court of
France, with practically no reasoning at all, declared that there is no such thing as
intellectualproperty[144].
137.FrenchPatentReports,FirstSeries,Vol.1p.57:75.
138.Blanc,p.17.
139.ReportonManufactures,17912,ConstitutionalEditionvol.4p.143,197.
140.LesBrevetsdInvention,1878.
141.AbolitionofPatents,RecentDiscussions,LondOn1869(anonymous).
142.Renouard,op.cit.alsoTraitedesDroitsdAuteurs,1838.
143.TraitedesBrevets,1869,p.25.
144.Bull.CourdeCassation,Civ.,1887,p.321.
735
The mere, hollow phrase intellectual property survived, while the positive
doctrine, according to which the civil law or common law inherently created such a
propertyintheauthorofanewwork,ortheinventorofnewtechnology,lostallofficial
recognition. This change took place almost everywhere, as the precept was set in
France. We can say, with very slight exaggeration, that France created this doctrine
duringtheeighteenthcen
tury,anddestroyeditduringthenineteenth.
The main effect, and probably also the strongest reason of this remarkable
change pertained to the employeremployee relationship. Intellectual property, by
definition, belonged to the inventor. When the doctrine of intellectual property had
disappeared,theclaimforapatent,andtitletothepatent,wassuddenlyfoundinthe
handsoftheinventorsemployer.Intheabsenceofanycontract,hewasheldentitled
toallbenefits,includingeventherighttoapplyforthepatentinthefirmname[145].
Theconvenientexcusewasfurnishedbythedoctrinethataright,presumablyheldby
the inventor, cannot be property if it is limited in time. Actually all rights of the
inventor, whether property or not, were disregarded. The true motive was greed and
shortsightedness. The patentee was pampered, but the inventor was forgotten. It is
significant that at the same time the relative industrial strength of France, compared
withthatofherneighbors,felltolowerlevelsthanundertheoldregime.
19/36
15/12/2015
5.IntellectualPropertyinAmerica
Implied statutory recognition was given to intellectual property in England,
simultaneouslywiththefirstdesignpropertystatuteofFrance[146].Thefirstandonly
English act that must be mentioned in this connection, known as the statute of Ann,
1711, refers to the author or proprietor of a new work, clearly implying that
authorshipestablishesaproperty,whichcanbetransferredtoapublisher.Obviously,
thisideahaddevel
145.SeeProprieteIndustrielle,1922,p.2231.
146.Lowndes,Hist.sketchofthelawofcopyright,1840.
736
oped prior to the statute and was presupposed, like a notion requiring no special
affirmation.AsimilarimplicationhadbeenmadeinAmerica,atanevenearlierdate.
TheColonyofMassachusetts,in1672,hadprohibitedthemakingofreprintswithout
the consent of the owner of the copy [147]. It appears that the same trend was
strongly active in England and her Colonies that was found in France, and that we
couldtracetotheVenetianstatuteof1545.
In the early AngloAmerican patent system we also find, of course, statutory
expressions of an unmistakably mercantilist vein. For instance, Connecticut, also in
1672, allowed patent monopolies only for such matters .and times as were deemed
profitableforthecountry[148].Here,theclearimplicationwasthatthemerefactof
invention did not necessarily give rise to an inherent, exclusive property right of the
inventor. Of course it is possible that this mercantilist thought was disregarded in
practicewehaveitsequivalentinourpresentutilitystatutes,anddisregardit,along
withmanyotherobsoleteexpressions.
Thereisatleastapotentialconflictbetweensuchviewsasarerepresentedbythe
twoactsof1672.InEngland,thisconflictbecameactualandfoundanonetoopointed
decision in the interconnected, leading cases ofMillar v. Taylor, before the Kings
Bench in 1769 with Lord Mansfield presiding, andDonaldson v. Becket, before the
HouseofLordsin1774[149].Theissuesinvolvedinbothcasescanbereducedtothe
questions:(1)whetherthecommonlawrecognizeda.rightofintellectualpropertyinan
author (2) whether this right continued in existence after the publication of a
work (3) whether this common law right went beyond certain rights declared by the
StatuteofAnnand(4)whethersuchfartherreachingcommonlawrightscouldprevail.
aftertheStatuteofAnn.MansfieldandthemajorityinMillarv.Tayloransweredeach
ofthefourquestionsaffirmatively.
147.Below,p.758.
148.Below,p.758.
149.4Burr2303and2408.
737
InDonaldson.v.Becket,thefourthpointwasclearlydeniedbythemajority:Thiswas
sufficient to reverse the practical result. It is contested whether a majority
inDonaldsonv.Becketdeniedthefirstandsecondpointalso[150].Thisisnoteasyto
20/36
15/12/2015
ascertain.Norisitverysignificant.WhateveranymajorityintheDonaldsoncasesaid
about this first and second point amounted only to a judicial dictum, in view of the
clearandsufficientholdingaboutpointfour.ThemajoritystatementintheMillarcase,
concerning the first and second points, was a true holding and opinion, deciding a
necessary issue of the case, and, is good common law now, as well its before the
Donaldsoncase:
Moreover, Blackstones first edition, completely published one year before the
Millarcase,hadrecognizedandtaughtthatthecommonlawvestedtheauthorofanew
work, as such, with an exclusive right. The same view was expounded in the vast
majorityofthetwodozenpamphletsonintellectualpropertythatappearedduringthe
eraofDonaldsonv.Becket[151].
Ifstillfurtherconfirmationofthedoctrinewasnecessary,itwasfurnishedbythe
statecopyrightstatutesenactedundertheColonialCongress[152].Amajorityofthese
provided that a copyright belongs to the author of a new work, or to his heirs,
administrator or executor [153]. This possibility of transfer upon death is one of the
main incidents of property. In ten states, a: preamble preceded the statute. Four of
these preambles [154] recited in substance what Diderot had said, that no one is so
clearlythemasterofhisgoodsasamanisthemasteroftheproductsofthelaborofhis
mind. They added, in various forms, the good old mercantile argument that the
commoninterestisfurtheredbyencouragingsuch
150.SeeWheatonv.Peters,33US(8Pet.)591.
151.Th.Solberg,Bibliogr,ofLit.Prop.,inThePublishersWeekly,1882
85reprintedInR.R.
Bowker,Copyright,1886.
152.Th.Solberg,CopyrightEnactmentsoftheUnitedStates17831906,CopyrightBulletin3,1906.
153.Solberg,Cop.En:,seeunderConn.,Md.,N.J.,Pa.,No.C.,.Ga.andN.Y.
154.Below,p.758,759,Mass.,N.H.,No.C.andR..I.
738
labors.Onestatutorypreamble[155]saidthatnaturalequityandjusticerequirethe
securing of such productions to every author. Three [156] stated somewhat more
cautiouslythatsuchsecuringisperfectlyagreeabletonaturalequityandjustice,and
of course conducive to the public good through the encouragement of extraordinary
labors. Three had safeguarding clauses for commonlaw copyrights [157]. The sum
total of these preambles creates the impression that the common law doctrine of
intellectual property was not only known but generally recognized, and locally
considered as a most important law. The essential items added to these established
principles,bythestatutoryenactmentsofthestates,relatedtothetermofthecopyright,
the requirement and benefit of registration [158] and the duty to provide sufficient
editionsofcopyrightedbooks,atreasonableprices[159].
Thuswecanconsiderthedoctrineofintellectualpropertyaswellsettledinthe
common law of copyrights, as of 1787, although at later times, this was occasionally
doubted[160].
It is another question whether the same doctrine is or was settled, or tenable,
21/36
15/12/2015
under the common law as to patents [161]. Blackstone did not say so no books or
pamphlets asserted it and no English case was brought to decide this issue. This
relative silence of the law books, as to patents, is not the only distinguishing feature.
From the beginning, England favored copyright privileges over patent privileges
mainlybythegrantingofmuchlongerterms.Inordertounderstandthiswemustgo
backinhistory,oncemore.
The earliest Venetian copyrights were granted for rather short periods.
Occasionally,oneoftheearliest
155.Below,p.758,Ga.
156.Below,p.758,Conn.,N.J.,N.Y.
157.Solberg,Cop.En.,underConn.,Ga.andN.Y.
158.Solberg,Cop.En.,underConn.,Md.,N.J.,Pa.,So.C.,Va.,No.C.,Ga.,N.Y.
159.Solberg,Cop.En.,seeunderConn.,So.C.,No.C.,Ga.andN.Y.
160.Wheatonv.Peters,33US(8Pet.)591,Dictuminmajorityopinion,
161.Wheatonv.Peters,Dissent.
739
copyrightsfailedtostateatermortimelimitation[162],andithasbeenassumedthat
thisevidencedaruleoflawaccordingtowhichsuchprivilegewasgrantedforlifeor
perpetuity[163].However,itismoreprobablethattheomissionwasduetoneglect,
and that these earliest rights actually were granted with the understanding that they
would be revocable at the will of the state. If Venice, in 1570, made authors
copyrights perpetual [164] this was a new development, intervening more than
hundred years after the first privilege known, and more than twenty years after the
establishmentoftheprintersandpublishersguild.Itisprobable,then,thatsuchfar
reachingrecognitionofcopyrightswasadirectorindirectresultofpressureexertedby
theguild.
InEngland,thehistoryofcopyrightsstartedpracticallysimultaneouslywiththat
oftheStationersCompany,whichwasthepertinentguildinthatcountry.Inventors,
inherently,werealwaysbareofanyaidbytheguilds,andfrequentlyexposedtohostile
guild intervention, while authors, through their publishers, had the benefit of
representationbyalargenationalguild.Infact,societiesstemmingfromthatguildare
still surviving, while neither engineers nor especially inventors, as a group, are
organizedinanyway.Thusitisnotparticularlysurprisingthatlonglastingcopyrights
were issued, while patent terms were relatively limited at all times. Yet, this was
merelyaresultofdifferentialbargainingpowers,inthefightforintellectualproperty
protection.Inherently,therewasandisnojustificationforcopyrighttermsbeingany
longer than patent terms, or for copyright protection being any stronger than patent
protection.
Unquestionably there was no common law in favor of either copyrights or
patents,inEnglandbeforeorunderElizabeth.Thatacommonlawrighttocopyright
protectionwasrecognizedunderGeorgeIIImusthavebeen
162.Stolfi,AppendixNo.5,6:
22/36
15/12/2015
163.Stolfip.22.
164.Stolfip.29.
740
the result of administrative practices gradually being condensed into a custom, or
commonlaw.
Withequaljustification,acommonlawrightcouldhavebeenascertained,inthe
eraoftheDonaldsoncase,wherebyaninventor,assuch,ownsanexclusiverightinhis
invention,beforeandafterpublicationthereof,intheabsenceofapatentstatute.No
patentstatuteinterferingwithsuchacommonlawrighthadintervenedinEnglandthe
only pertinent enactment, before the19th century, was the clause in the Statute of
Monopolieswherebylimitedmonopoliesforinventionswereauthorized.ThisStatute
neitherrequirednorregulatedpatents,exceptthatitfixedamaximumterm.Withor
without a statutory basis, it was not usual to claim patents from the crown, but to
praythatapatentmaybegranted.Infacttheseserviletermsareusedevennow,in
this supposedly free republic. They have long lost their original connotations. They
only mean, the applicant asks the state to certify his existing rights. This was the
connotation,astocopyrightsinEngland,asearlyas1700orearlier.Wecanconclude
thatthiswastheconnotationalso,astopatents,aboutthesametime.
ThisanalysisdiffersfromthatofthewriterswhoconsiderEnglishcommonlaw
asahomespunaffair,eternallypreservingthedustofthemiddleages,,andrecognizing
arightonlyifasolemncourt,onthebasisofmoreorlesspertinentopinionsofsimilar
courts,hasexpressly,definitelyandinsistentlydeclaredthatthisright,andnotaniota
moreorless,hasexistedsincetimesimmemorial,andmustexistatalltimes.Sucha
court did happen to be invoked, and did express itself, in the Millar and Donaldson
cases. What it actually did, in finding that the common law recognizes copyright
claims, was to condense an administrative practice into a rule of law. The same
practice had been prevailing as to patents, and any court, then or now, was and is
justifiedinfindingthatthecommonlawrecognizessimilarpatentclaims.
741
The administrative practice of the English crown was paralleled by one m the
colonies,andlaterintheStates.Patentswereissuedasamatterofcourse[165].
Perhapsthestrongestargumentforcommonlawpatentrightsappearsfromtwo
ofthestatecopyrightstatutes.Oneofthese[166]includedusefuldiscoveriesinthe
listofachievements,resultingfromprotectionofintellectualproperty.Another[167]
wasstillmoreexplicitandprovided:Theinventorsofusefulmachinesshallhavea
like exclusive privilege of making or vending their machines for the like term of 14
years,underthesameprivilegesandrestrictionsherebygrantedtoandimposedonthe
authorsofbooks.Inaddition,thepreamblesofseveralstatecopyrightstatuteswere
broadenoughtobeappliedtoinventorsaswellasauthors[168].
Therefore, it is a well supportable theory that modern common law vests the
inventorwithpropertyinhisinventioninthesamemannerthatitveststheauthorwith
23/36
15/12/2015
propertyinhisbook,althoughprimitivecommonlawrecognizedneither.
ThistheoryhasbeenrejectedbynoonelessthanThomasJefferson,inaprivate
opinionoccasionedbyhisdisputewithOliverEvans[169].Jeffersonsopinionisone
of the most plausible statements of the view opposed to common law patents, or
industrial property. However, it is largely based on assumptions contradicted by the
history of patents, namely, that industrial property, as historically asserted, implies a
perpetualproperty[170],andthatEnglishprecedentistheonlyoneinpoint[171].
Jeffersoneitherwrotethepatentactof1793,oratleastinfluencedtheunderlying
theories.Accordingtothisact,theapplicantforapatenthadtosignify,inhispetition,
adesireofobtaininganexclusivepropertyinhisinvention,notaclaimtohavean
existingpropertysecured
165.P.J,Federico,IIJPOS358and13JPOS166.
166.Below,p.758,759,seeNo.C.
167.Solberg,Cop.En.,seeSo.C.
168.Below,p.758759,seeMass.,N.H.,N.J.,R.I.
169.Below,p.759.
170.Below,p.759.
171.Below,p.760.
742
tohimself.Thislanguagewasusedalsoin1836.Itwaschanged,however,in1870.
Thisfactshouldberememberedwhenthequestioncomesupwhethercertainholdings
anddictainearlyleadingcaseshavebinding.forceatthepresenttime.
The first American leading case in point [172] related to copyrights. The
question of commonlaw copyrights was discussed the majority was doubtful, and
therewasadissentinfavorofsuchrights.Theactualholding,issquarelybasedonthe
statute, and nothing of binding force was said about the common law right.
Incidentally, both the majority and the dissenting opinion remarked that there is no
common law property right of inventors. This was, plainly, a mere dictum, so far as
thiscaseisconcerned.Nevertheless,itwasfrequentlyrepeated,andcitedasauthority,
atlatertimes.Thetroubleisthatnodistinctionwasmadebetweencommonlawand
primitivecommonlaw.Thedictumistrueonlyastotheprimitivelaw.
Thenextleadingcase[173]relatedtoFitzgeraldspatentfora.fireproofchest.
WhileFitzgeraldsapplicationwaspendingheassignedhisrightstoWilder.Laterthe
patent was issued, to Fitzgerald. Wilder then sued Gayler for infringement. Gayler
denied, among other things, Wilder s title. The lower court held for Wilder. On
GaylersappealtotheSupremeCourt,WilderwasrepresentedbyWebster,whoargued
on the basis of the common law doctrine of industrial property. He prevailed the
decisionwasaffirmed.However,theopinion,byC.J.Taney,reflectedthedoctrinein
a modified form. The inventors right, before issuance of the patent, was called an
inchoate right. Taney held that the right can be transferred and that the transfer
carriestitleinthesubsequentpatenttotheassignee.However,Taneyaddedadictum
that the inchoate right supports no suit to exclude others. This dictum is plainly in
24/36
15/12/2015
keeping with those in the previous case, although the actual holding of Taney goes
awayfromthatcase.Thedictum,ofcourse,could
172.Wheatonv.Peters,33US(8Pet.)591.
173.Gaylerv.Wilder,51US(10How.)477.
743
bebasedalsoonthedoctrineofDonaldsonv.Becket,althoughitisstillaquestionwhy
that case was followed in the dictum, but apparently not in the holding. perhaps the
case can be rationalized as a further development ofDonaldson v. Becket. The
Donaldson case settled the situation as to common law rights exceeding the statutory
rightsinscope,totheeffectthatthestatutoryright,alone,canprevail.Theholdingin
thepresentcasemodifiesthis,whilethedictumshowsthattheruleisonlymodifiedbut
not abolished. Somehow it was felt that in a proper case, the common law rule can
supplementthestatutoryrules.Thedifficultyliesinfindingwhatisapropercasefor
such relaxation of the principle of Donaldson v. Becket. It is hard to see that a
recognition of assignments entirely based on common law grounds is so much more
essentialorequitablethanarecognitionofarighttosueoncommonlawgrounds,asto
justify the general relaxation of the rule in favor of the former but not for the latter.
Thecasemaycomeupwhereirreparabledamageisthreatenedtoapartywhocannot
sueforinfringement,oncommonlawgrounds,priortotheissuanceofthepatent.In
suchacase,equityshouldallowasuit,regardlessoftheunexplaineddictumadded,by
Taneytohislawdecision.
There was a dissent in the present case, which even denied the inchoate right
recognizedbyTaney,inverystrongterms.Thisextremeviewhasbeenrejectedbythe
prevailingschoolofthought.
Taneys dictum was cited with approval in subsequent cases [174], and can be
saidtorepresenttheprevailingview.Occasionallyitwasstretchedtothepointwhere
highlyquestionableresultswerebasedonit.
Forinstance,inonecase[175],theSupremeCourtheld,ontheallegedauthority
of Taneys dictum, but actually expanding it, until the patent is issued there is no
propertyrightinit.Apatenthadbeensueduponwhichduetoaneglect,didnotbear
thesignatureoftheSecretaryofInterior.Itwasheldthatsuchapatentwill
174.ForinstanceBrownv.Duchesne,60US183.
175.Marshv.Nichols,128.US605.
744
notsustainaninfringementsuit,becauseitisonlythepatent,instrictcompliancewith
the statute, which creates a property interest in the invention. This Supreme Court
holding,whilepayinglipservicetoTaneysunexplaineddictum,violatesthespiritof
Taneysactualholding.Itisbelievedtobebadlaw,andtobeoverruled,ineffect,by
modernholdingsoftheSupremeCourt,relatingtocommonlawprinciples.Congress
validated the patent involved by a special act, enacted before the Supreme Court
decision,butprovidingthatcasesarisingpriortothepassageoftheactshouldnotbe
25/36
15/12/2015
affected.[175a].
InaninterestingcasebeforetheCourtofClaims[176]itwasintimatedthatthe
common law of patents, like that of trademarks, may well have gradually developed
fromthestageofignorancetothatofrecognitionofadoctrineofintellectualproperty.
Thehistoricalfactssubmittedarestrongevidenceforsuchadevelopment.
While intellectual property is either rejected or only contemplated from far, by
American courts, the doctrine can claim some literary support. Common law patent
rights were definitely asserted by Daniel Webster [177] and at least implied by
ProfessorRobinson[178,asidefromlessersupport[179].Somewritershaveleftthe
question more or less open [180]. A majority, of course, is contented with simply
repeatingthetenoroftheholdingsanddictaofthecourts.
Theresultofthemajorityviewisthatthebasicprinciplesofourpresentpatent
law are the same as those established in Venice before 1500, in France before 1700,
andinEnglandatsomelatertime.Accordingtothisviewwearenotatthepointwhere
Lyonswasin1711,
175a.24Stat.378,C93.
176.MKeeferv.U.S.,14C.C.396alsoseeWalkerDelleronPatents,vol.2p.1152.
177.SeeGaylerv.Wilder,51US(10How.)477alsocitationsin0.R.Barnett,PatentProperty,
1943,p.507,508.
178.RobinsononPatents,Vol.Ip.15.
179.Forinstance,seetheanonymouspamphlet,byOliverEvans,Ex
positionofPartofthePatent
LawsbyaNativeBornCitizen,1816,p.51alsoOliverEvanstohisCounsel,1813orlater,p.48
WalkeronPat
entsascited14JPOS236J.L.McAuliffe14JPOS258,etc.
180.TerrellonPatents,8thed.,p.4C.J.Hamson,Pat.R.forSci.Discov.,1930,p.3.
745
Francein1767,andtherestoftheworldsoonafter1790.Thereissomethingunlikely
inthisview.OfcoursethesuggestivepoweroftheprinciplesenunciatedbyDiderot
andhisfollowersmaybediminished,intheeyesofsome,bythefactthatFranceand
therestoftheworldhavesubsequentlyrepudiatedthem,duringthedecadesofreaction.
We,however,arestillholdingtotheprinciplesofourbasiclaws,whicharesocloseto
thoseoftheFrenchrevolution.What,then,doesourConstitutionmeanwhengranting
Congressthepowertopromotetheprogressofscienceandusefularts,bysecuringfor
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings
anddiscoveries?
Europeanobserversdiscoverarecognitionofinherentindustrialpropertyrights
in our constitutional patent clause [181]. It may be that, if the European history of
patentshadbeenknown,theopinionsofJeffersonandTaneywouldreaddifferently.
It is unknown what the authors of our organic law intended, subjectively.
However, we have some aids towards a. proper, objective construction of the
document.Whilethereisnothingwithinthefourcornersofthedocumentitselfwhich
tendstointerpretthepatentclause,wedohaveanumberofpreliminarydraftsofthe
clause[182]inadditiontothepriorlawsofAmericanandforeignstates.Thesedrafts
26/36
15/12/2015
arealmostidenticalwithoneanother,sofarasauthorsrightsareconcerned,signifying
that there was no serious debate about the copyright protection to be secured to
authors.Concerningpatents,thesedraftsareatvariance.One[183]failstoprovidefor
patents at all. Another [184] makes a distinction between literary authors and
inventors, rewarding inventions by premiums and provisions, in accordance with
Alexander Hamiltons views. This, as others [185] is vague enough to allow a
constructionidenti
181.K.Michaelis,Am.Pat.Recht,1932,p.I,8J.Vojacek,SurveyofthePrinc.Nat.Pat.Syst.,1936,
p.7,8.
182.Below,p.759.
183.Below,p.759,No.1.
184.Below,p.759,No.2.
185.Below,p.759,No.3,4.
746
calwiththeprecedingdraft,aswellasaconstructioninvolvingexclusiverights.Still
another[186]putsthediscoveriesofinventorsdefinitelyonthesameexclusiveright
footingastheperformancesofotherauthors.
The substance of this latter draft reappears in the Constitution as actually
adopted, aside from differences of expression. An important reference to the
advancementoftheartswasadded.Inthisrespecttheseconddraftwasfollowedbut
whilethatdraftauthorizedonlypremiumsandprovisions,theConstitutionspeaksof
exclusive rights. If these drafts signify anything then it is, in the first place, the
intention not to do away with patents, and with exclusive rights to inventors. In the
secondplacethereisanapparentintent,intheclauseasadopted,toputinventionson
thesamefootingwithliterarywritings,sofarasthepowerofCongressisconcerned.
Thisisalsoborneoutbythefirstandmostauthoritativecommentaryonourclause,
writtenbyMadison[187].
It does not follow that the Constitution elevated the doctrine of intellectual
property,oranyotherpatentconcepts,beyondtheplaintermsoftheclause,tothelevel
ofabasiclaw,theabolitionofwhichwouldrequireanamendmenttotheConstitution.
TheAmericanassemblyin1787didnotgonearlyasfarinthisrespectastheFrenchin
1790.Exclusiverightsofauthors,andalsoofinventors,mayexistunderthecommon
law, and they are certainly not abrogated but only secured by the Constitution
however, they do not rise to the dignity of Rights of Man, according to this view.
Thiswasastepbackward,notonlyfromtheviewsofDiderot,butfromthoseofsome
oftheStatecopyrightstatutesenactedashorttimebefore.
Accordingly,Congresscanconstitutionallyabrogatethecommonlawdoctrineof
intellectual property. So long as this is not done, the common law doctrine exists,
althoughasimultaneouslyexistingstatute,accordingto
186.Below,p.759,No.5.
187.TheFederalist,No.43,
747
27/36
15/12/2015
themodifieddoctrineofDonaldsonv.Becket,largelyinactivatesthisdoctrine.
Another question is whether Congress can constitutionally abrogate both the
common law right and all statutory rights, of an exclusive character, and reduce
inventors to some purely theoretical expectations in accordance with the second draft
fortheconstitutionalclause,orevenadopttheextremeviewofthefirstdraft.Ithas
beensaidthatCongressislimitedinthisrespect,andthatevenaprovisionforworking
obligations,securedbycompulsorylicenses,wouldbeunconstitutionalforthereason
thatsuchprovisionswereusualinallpreviouspatentsystems,whiletheConstitution
avoids reference to patents and speaks of exclusive rights [188]. However, no
desirewasexpressedwithanycertainty,in1787,topreventCongressfromadopting
suchpatentlimitationsaswereingeneraluseatthattime[189].Exclusiverightsare
not necessarily unconditional. However, they are basically and diametrically
differentfrompremiumsandthelike,andofcourse,irreconcilablewiththeideaof
norightsatallforinventions.Therefore,itwouldbeunconstitutionalforCongressto
subjectallpatentstocompulsorylicensingasamatterofprinciplesuchpaperscould
becalledpatents,butwouldnotpartakeofthenatureofexclusiverights,whichare
the only ones authorized by the Constitution. An exclusive patent that can be made
nonexclusive, upon reasonable terms, is in an entirely different classification, and is
not, on its very face, an unconstitutional instrument. Of course, it is still a question,
whattermsaresufficientlyreasonable.Thestatecopyrightstatutesenactedbeforethe
constitutiondonotanswerthisquestionwithanydetail.However,thepracticedefined
bytheFrenchlawof1762,whichprobablyprevailedinothercountriesalsosuggestsa
principletheequityofwhichcanhardlybedenied.
188.K.Penning,11JPOS438.
189.Schechter,22Virg.L.R.,287,309.
748
Inaccordancewiththeabove,ourpresentpatentstatutesshouldbeinterpretedas
laws declaratory of the common law. Inferences frequently drawn from the opposite
doctrine[190]areunjustified.Itdoesnotfollow,however,thateverydoubtmustbe
resolvedinfavorofthepatenteeorinventor.TheConstitutionissufficientlyspecific
aboutthepublicinteresttoprecludesuchareading.However,theConstitutionneither
requiresnorsuggestsaninequitableresultliketheSupremeCourtholdingthatapatent
whenunsignedbyneglectdoesnotsupportaninfringementsuit.
Itisquiteastepfromthenowprevailingdenialofcommonlawpatentrightsto
Daniel Websters view. There are difficulties in applying the doctrine, as well as in
denyingit.Theopponentsofintellectualpropertywereneverabletoexplainwhythe
originatorofapotshouldbevestedwithinherentpropertyinthetangiblething,while
the originator of a new design for pots should go unrewarded. The AngloAmerican
doctrinecouldneverjustifythepropertyinanewestheticidea,orinanewtradename,
whilepropertyinanewtechnologicalideawasdenied.Ontheotherhand,thefriends
ofintellectualpropertyhaveseldom,ifever,explainedwhythisproperty,accordingto
the now accepted rule, should be limited to a term of years, when other property is
28/36
15/12/2015
perpetual.Theideaformingthesubjectofsucharightcannotbesaidtobeperishable
like a fruit, or apt to withdraw itself from human possession like an animal ferae
naturae.
This difficulty, the only serious one opposing the acceptance of the industrial
propertydoctrine,canbeovercomebyestablishedprinciplesofpropertylaw.Bothreal
and personal property, regardless whether in the nature of choses in possession or
chosesinaction,aresubjecttotheStatuteofLimitation,whichbynowhasbecomean
institutionofthecommonlaw.Thereisnogoodreasontoholdthatpublicationofa
newestheticortechnologicalideaistantamounttoadedicationtothepublicbutsuch
publicationdoesstartaperiodofpos
190.Forinstance,thedissentofJ.BlackintherecentMercoidcase.
749
session by the public. It can be presumed, from the experience of the centuries, that
such possession has the character of adverse possession. Thus, in the absence of a
patent term fixed by a patent statute, the intellectual property held by an author or
inventoristerminatedbythegeneralStatuteofLimitations,theperiodofwhichbegins
torunatthemomentofthefirstpublication.
6.Documents
VENICE
1469:PatentofJohnofSpeyer[191[
Therehasbeenintroducedintoourcommunitytheartofbookprinting,andfromdaytodayit
ismademorecelebratedandfrequentbytheefforts,studyandingenuityofmasterJohnofSpeyer,
who preferred our city to all others to live here and to exercise said art so that it will be
enrichedbynumerousandexcellentbooks.Andsincesuchinvention,peculiarandpropertoourtime
and entirely unknown to our elders, deserves every aid and favor, master John too should receive
materialaid,sothathemayperseveresomuchmoreeagerly.Inthesamemannerasusualinother
useful arts, even in much inferior ones, the undersigned councillors have decreed that for five
years next following there should be nobody whosoever who would, could, might or dare exercise
said art of bookprinting in Venice and its territories, except master John himself. And whenever
anybody should be found who dares against this decree to exercise said art and to print books he
shouldbecondemnedtoafine,andlossofhisinstruments,andbooksprintedbyhim.Andunderthe
samepenaltynobodymustbringsuchbookshereforsale,whenprintedinothercountries.
1474:PatentStatute[192]
Libro Maggiore of the Provveditori del Comun, p. 89. Privileges of ten years are generally
promisedtotheinventorsofnewartsandmachines.
1545:IntellectualPropertyStatute[193]
Itisdecreedthathenceforthnoprinterofthiscityshalldaretoprintanyworksunless
theauthororhisheirshavedeclaredtheirconsentandrequestedtheprinting.
191.Stolfi,App.No.IFulin,App.No.1.
192.AsreportedbyRomanin,vol.4p.485.Theactualwording,unfortunately,isunknown.
193.Stolfi,App.No.13BrownApp.1No.7.
750
FRANCE
29/36
15/12/2015
1536:PrivilegeofEtienneTurquetti[194]
MinutesoftheConsularGovernmentofLyons.August25,1536.Mr.M.deVauzelles,royal
advocate,reportedhowEtienneTurquetandothers,hispartners,arrangedtohaveworkerscomehere,
to establish enterprises in this city, to make fabrics of silk here, provided that there be obtained
permissionofthekingandsafeconductforsaidhelpandworkers,inasmuchastheywillcomefrom
Genoaandotherforeigncountriessaidworkerstohavefranchisesandtaxexemptionslikethoseat
Tours
August28,1536SoresolvedbytheConsularGovernment,whichwillprosecutethematter
withallpoweratitscommand.
September2,1536.EtienneTurquetcametoshowroyalletterswhichhesaysweregrantedto
himbythecounciloftheking,toestablishenterprisesforwhichsaidmonarchgivessafeconduct
andtaxexemption.Theletter,drawnupbythejudgeVauzelleswasfoundinorder.Again,said
Turquetti showed that a year has gone by since he started to prosecute this affair and he has
expended great costs And since there may be others who, after said art and enterprises are
established will want to establish additional enterprises of said art and have not carried any
expensehewishesthattheseshouldpermitthatsaidTurquetreceiveacontributionfromthem
WhichwasgrantedtohimbytheConsulargovernment.
May17,1537.(Turquet,thefirstinventorandauthorofsaidestablishmentsobtainsaloan
fromthecity,forwhichhetransfershisprivilegetothecity.)
January29,1538.(Turquetobtainsanewmunicipalloan,andtaxexemption.Stipulatedthat,
regardless of the transfer of the privilege, said councilors shall not allow any one to come to
establishsuchenterprisesexceptwhenfirstagreeingwithsaidTurquetandhispartnerstopaypart
ofsaidcosts)
Nov.9,1540.(Turquethasaguildestablishedforthenewart.)
1551:PatentofThesesIndio[195]
Henry, etc. We have received the humble petition of our dear and beloved Theses Mutio,
ItalianGentleman,settingforththatuponthesuggestionofcertainnotabilitiesofourkingdomhe
194.Montfalconvol.2p.311317.
195.Isambertvol.13p.184,185.
751
came to reside here to cast and make glasses, mirrors, tubes, and other kinds of glassware,
accordingtothemannerofVenice.
He was unable to take along his tools and had to make new tools at great cost and
expense.
Andnow,whenallispreparedasrequired,andsothattheworkproducedisgenerallyfound
asbeautifulandexcellentasthatimportedfromVenice,hefearsthatotherglassmakersmightcopy
hissaidworkinthemannerofVenice,andtherebyfrustratehisrecoveryofsaidcostandexpense.
ThereforewegivethesaidThesesMutiotheright,permissionandexpressprivilegethatfor
the period of ten years next following he alone may make glassware according to the manner of
Venice and have the same for sale we prohibit and forbid that any glassmakers during said ten
yearsshallmakeorholdforsaleanyglasswareaccordingtothemannerofVenice,exceptthose
madebysaidThesesMutiooronhisorderunderpenalty
1699:ExaminationStatute[196]
RegulationsoftheRoyalAcademyofScience,Article31:TheAcademyshall,onorderofthe
King, examine all machines for which privileges are solicited from His Majesty it shall certify
whethertheyarenewanduseful,andtheinventorsofthosewhichareapprovedshallleaveamodel
thereof Article 34: Nonmembers of the Academy are not admitted to the meetings, except when
introducedbytheSecretaryforthepurposeofdemonstratinganydiscoveriesoranynewmachines.
30/36
15/12/2015
1711:FirstDesignPropertyStatute[197]
Ordinance of the Consuls of Lyons (1711), approved by the Council of State (1712) and
registered in Parliament (1717): All master merchants, working masters, journeymen and others
employedinthemanufactureoffabricsofsilk,regardlessofsexandage,areexpresslyprohibitedand
enjoined from taking, stealing, selling, lending, transferring and using directly or indirectly any
designswhichhavebeenentrustedtothemformanufacturingpurposes.
1744:SecondDesignPropertyStatute[198]
AnActbytheCouncilofState,concerningtheManufactureofSilkinLyons.Title9.
Art.12.Further,saidworkingmastersareprohibitedfromselling,givingaway,orlending,for
anycauseandunderany
196.HistoiredeLAc.Roy.desSc.,1699,publ.1706,p.3.
197.Pouilletp.4.
198.Pouilletp.5.
752
pretext,anydesignswhichhavebeenentrustedtothemformanufacturingpurposes,underpenaltyof
afine
Art. 1.3. Further, all designers and other persons whosoever are prohibited from lifting and
copying,orcausingotherstoliftandcopy,directlyorindirectly,inanymanner,anydesignonfabric
eitheroldornew,oronthedesigncards.ofsaidfabrics,underpenalty..
1762:Statuteonrightsarisingfrompatents[199]
Louis,etc.Theprivileges,whichhavetheobjectof.rewardingtheeffortsofinventors,andof
stimulatingthoselyingdormantinidleacquiescence,arenotalwaysassuccessfulascanbeexpected
the reason being sometimes that those privileges, when granted for unlimited time, seem to be
inheritablepropertyratherthanapersonalrewardtotheinventororthattheprivilegecanoftenbe
assignedtopersonswhodonothavetherequiredcapabilityorfinally,thatthechildren,successorsor
assignsofthegrantee,legallyentitledtotheenjoymentoftheprivilege,failtoacquirethenecessary
skill.Failuretouseaprivilegeisobjectionable,sinceitrestrictsliberty,whilegivingthepublicnone
of the goods that should be expected. Finally, the lack of publication of privileges granted often
enablesthegranteetoextendthesameandabusivelytoobstructtheworkandlaborofoursubjects.
Forsuch...reasons.
1) Trade privileges which have been or may be granted to individuals, either alone or in
partnership with others, for fixed and limited times, shall be executed according to their form and
tenor,untilthetermfixedtherein.
2)Allprivilegeswhichhavebeenormayhereafterbegrantedindefinitelyandwithoutterm,
shallbefixedandreducedtothetermoffifteenyearsofenjoyment,countingfromthegrant,andshall
soremain,exceptforextensionofsaidprivileges,ifsuchmaybegrantedtotheholderhowever,we
donot/intendtochangeanythinginregardtoconcessionsmadebyusinanyproperty,beitinfranc
almoign,infee,orunderyearlycontribution.
3)Privilegesnotlimitedatthetimeofthegrant,whichbytheprecedingarticlearefixedtothe
termoffifteenyears,andwhichhaveexpiredorenteredthefourteenthorfifteenthyearoftheiruse,
on the day of publication hereof, shall be extended for three years counting from the day of such
publication,exceptwherefurtherextensionmaybeobtainedbythegrantee.
4) It shall be lawful for the grantee to assign the use of his privilege to his children or
grandchildren,intervivosbutit
199.Rec.desEditsetDecl.,vol.4,1776Renouardp.106.
753
shallbeunlawfultoassignittootherswithoutspecialauthorizationbyus.
31/36
15/12/2015
5)Incaseofthedeceaseofthegranteeduringthelifeofhisprivilege,hisdirectorcollateral
heirs, general or special legatees, or other assigns shall not be entitled to become holders of said
privilege, except on confirmation obtained from us, after proof of their capability, notwithstanding
any clauses whatsoever that may be found either in any granting instruments or in any subsequent
instrumentsoracts,allofwhichareherebyexpresslyrevoked.
6) All privileges the grantees of which have unsuccessfully attempted actual practice, or
neglecteduseandexerciseforoneyear,togetherwiththeorders,letterspatent,patentcertificatesor
otherinstrumentscontainingsuchprivileges,shallbevoidandrevokedforalltimes,exceptwherethe
exerciseofsuchprivilegeswassuspendedforlegitimatereasonsordifficulties,tobejustifiedbythe
grantee.
7) In order to make said privileges known to whom it may concern we wish that after the
registrationofsaidprivilegesinourCourts,thereshallbesentatruecopythereof,byourAttorney
General,totheBailiffsofficesinwhoseterritoriestheyshallbeused.
1767:.DiderotonintellectualProperty[200]
LetteronthePublishingTradeThequestion.iswhetheraprivilegeshouldbeclassifiedas
oneoftheobnoxiousmonopolies.
YouwillsayitisamonopolyinderogationofCommonLawrights.
Thatisquitetrue.
And, you will add, it must have seemed harsh to concede to one what was refused to
another.
Itseemsharshbuteitherthatisclone,ornoonecaneverpleadthecauseofthefirstoccupant
andoflegitimatepossession,foundedonrisks,laborandadvances.However,sothatthederogation
ofCommonLawrightsmightnotbeexcessive,theysawfittolimitthetimeofthismonopoly.
Theauthorismasterofhiswork,ornobodyismasterofhisgoods....
1776:Abolitionoftheguilds[201]
EdictofFebruary5,1.776Wewanttoabrogatethosearbitraryinstitutionswhichretard
theprogressofthearts,bymultipledifficultiesputinthewayofaninventorthoseguildsthatdispute
hisrighttouseadiscovery,nevermadebythemselves
200.Diderot,OeuvresCompl.,ed.1877,vol.18p.130.
201.Renouardp.110.
754
1779:Reestablishmentoftheguilds[202]
Theseinstitutionsshouldnotgotothepointoflimitmg.theimaginationandgeniusof
anindustriousman
1787:ThirdDesignPropertyStatute[203]
An Act to regulate new designs composed by or for manufacturers of silk and gold
embroideredfabricsoftheKingdom.
The King, having heard in council the petitions and memoranda of the corporations and
communities of Tours and of Lyons concerning attacks made against their property and against the
generalinterestofthemanufacturers,bythecopyingandplagiarizingofdesigns,considersthatthe
superiority which the silk manufactures of this kingdom have attained is principally due to the
invention, the correctness and the good taste of designs that the ambition which inspires the
manufacturersanddesignerswoulddisappeariftheywerenotassuredofthefruitsoftheirlaborsthat
thissecurity,inaccordancewiththerightsofproperty,hassofarsustainedthisbranchofmanufacture
andhaswonthepreferencethatthismanufactureenjoysabroadhejudges,therefore,thatinorderto
preserve all their advantages, all silk manufactures of the kingdom should be under the regulations
madeforthoseofLyonsin1737and1744,concerningthecopyingandplagiarizingofdesignsandto
32/36
15/12/2015
providethetrueinventorswithameansforestablishing,henceforth,insafeandunalterablemanner
theirproperty,andformoreandmoreincitingthetalentsbyanexclusiveenjoyment,proportionedin
itsdurationtothecostsandmeritsoftheinventionheordersasfollows:
1.Anymanufacturerwhohascomposed,orhashadotherscomposeanewdesign,shallhave
alone,totheexclusionofallothers,therighttohaveitexecutedinfabricsofsilk,embroideredsilk,or
mixturesofsilkthedurationofthisprivilegeshallbefifteenyearsinthecaseoffabricsforchurch
furnitureandadornment,andsixyearsinthecaseofthoseforotheruses,alwaysstartingfrom
thedayonwhichtheformalitieshereinafterprescribedhavebeenfulfilled.
2. His Majesty prohibits all workers from selling, giving away, or loaning to others any
designswhichhavebeenentrustedtothemformanufacturingpurposes,bypenalty
3.SimilarlyHisMajestyprohibitsalldesignersandothersfromliftingandcopyingdirectly
orindirectly,anydesignonfabrics,oldornew,orondesigncardsforsuchfabrics,bypenalty
4.(Typesoffabriccovered.)
202.Renouardp.117lsambertvol.26p.77.
203.Isambertvol.28p.380382Blancp.371573.
755
5.Anymanufacturerwhohasinventedorhashadothersmakeadesign,andwhodesiresto
conserveforhimselftheexecutionthereof,shallpresentasketchofthesametothebureauofhis
community, whereof a descriptive statement shall be made, without cost, in a register which
statementshallcontainthename,etc.ofthemasterandmanufacturerwho,asauthorandinventor
ofsuchdesignorfabricwantstoestablishhispropertythedateetc.
6.(Ifnotsoregistered,notprotected)
7.AManufacturerwhohasfulfilledtheformalrequirementsofarticle5shallbedeemedthe
sole proprietor of the design therefore it shall be open to him to prosecute, before the industrial
policecourtoftheinfringersdomicil,boththosewhohaveotherslift,copyortracethedesign,and
those who have it executed to ask that the penalties of articles 2, 3 and 4, above, be pronounced
against them, and that, the fabrics be seized, both in the hands of the manufacturer who had them
executed, and in the hands of any dealer who has them for sale provided that the dealer may take
recourse,forthevalueofthegoods,damagesandinterests,ifany,againstthemanufacturerwhosold
thefabricsmadewithlifted,copiedortraceddesigns.
8.HisMajestyprohibitsallmanufacturersfromhavingothersexecuteinfabricanydesign
executedonpaperorotherwise,withoutassuringhimselfwhetherthedesignonpaperhasnotbeen
executed previously in fabrics therefore, any manufacturer who executes in fabric a paper design
copiedfromfabric.,infringesarticle3
1790:IndustrialPropertyStatute[204]
Law on Useful Discoveries and on Means for Securing the Property therein to the Authors.
AdoptedDecember31,1790enactedJanuary7,1791.
TheNationalAssembly,consideringthatanynewidea,themanifestationordevelopmentof
whichmaybecomeusefultosociety,belongsbasicallytotheonewhohasconceivedit,andthatit
wouldbeaviolationoftheRightsofMan,intheiressence,nottoregardanindustrialdiscoveryas
propertyofitsauthor
Consideringatthesametimehowmuchthelackofapositiveandauthenticdeclarationofthis
truth.mayhavecontributed,untilnow,todiscourageFrenchindustry,causingvariousdistinguished
expertstoemigrate,andmanynewinventionstopassabroad,whilethiscountryshouldhavedrawn
thefirstbenefitsthereof
204.Lois&ActesduGouvernernent,vol.2,179091,publ.1806alsointheFrenchPatentReports,first
series,vol.Ip.2834.
756
33/36
15/12/2015
Consideringfiliallythatallprinciplesofjustice,publicorder,andnationalinterestcommand.
imperativelythatthisAssembly,forthwith,shouldstatetheopinionoftheFrenchpeopleconcerning
thiskindofproperty,byalawtoconsecrateitandtoprotectit,
Decreesasfollows.
1. Any discovery or new invention, in any kind of industry, is the property of its author.
Consequentlythelawguaranteestohimthefullandcompleteenjoymentthereof,inthemannerand
forthetimehereinafterdetermined.
2.Anymeansforaddingtoanymanufactureanewkindofperfectionshallberegardedasan
invention.
3.ThefirstpersontoimportaforeigndiscoveryintoFranceshallenjoythesameadvantages
asiflieweretheinventorthereof.
4.Anypersonwhowantstoconserveortosecuretohimselfanindustrialpropertyofthekind
referredtointheprecedingarticles,shall(first)fileawrittendeclarationstatingwhetherthesubject
involvedisaninvention,animprovement,oronlyimported(second)fileanexactdescriptionof
the principles, means and processes which constitute the invention, as well as the plans, cuts,
drawings,andmodelswhichmayhavereferencethereto...
5,6.(Otherrecompensationsauthorized,iftheinventorwaivesapatent)
7.Inordertosecuretoanyinventorthepropertyandtemporaryenjoymentofhisinvention,
there shall be delivered to him a title or patent, according to the form indicated in the Regulations
whichshallbemadeforthecarryingoutofthisdecree.
8.(Patentstobefor5,10or15yearsatthechoiceofapplicant)
9.(Importpatentstoexpirewithforeignpatent)
10.(Patentstobedeliveredthroughlocalauthorities)
11.(Publicationofpatents)
12.(Remediesforinfringement)
13.(Plaintiffliablefordamagesifhefailstoprovehiscase)
14.(Fullrighttouse,licenseorassignthepatent)
15.Attheexpirationofanypatent,sincethediscoveryorinventionoughttobelongtosociety,
the description thereof shall be made public, and the use thereof shall be permitted throughout the
country
16.(Patentsdeclaredvoidifthedescriptionisdeceptiveorincompleteifthesubjecthasbeen
described in a prior printed publication on failure to work the invention within two years except
wheregoodreasonisshownandifasubsequentforeignpatentistakenoutbythe.patentee.)
757
AMERICA
1672:MercantilistRuleinConnecticut[205]
There shall be no monopolies granted or allowed amongst us but of such new inventions as
shallbejudgedprofitableforthecountryandforsuchtimeasthegeneralcourtshalljudgemeet.
1672:IntellectualPropertyRuleinMassachusetts[206]
Noprintershallprintanymorecopiesthanareagreedandpaidforbytheownerofthesaid
copyorcopies,norshallhenoranyotherreprintormakesaleofanyofthesame,withoutthesaid
Ownersconsent,upontheforfeitureandpenalty
17836:PreamblesofCopyrightStatutesoftheStates[207]
CONNECTICUT1783:Whereasitisperfectlyagreeabletotheprinciplesofnaturalequityandjustice
thateveryauthorshouldbesecuredinreceivingtheprofitsthatmayarisefromthesaleofhisworks,
andsuchsecuritymayencouragemenoflearning
34/36
15/12/2015
DELAWARE:NoStatute
GEORGIA1786:Whereastheprinciplesofnaturalequityandjusticerequirethateveryauthorshould
besecuredinreceivingtheprofitsthatmayarisefromthesaleofhisworks,andsuchsecuritymay
encouragemenoflearning
MARYLAND 1783: Whereas printers may take the liberty of printing books without the
consentoftheauthorsandproprietorsofsuchbookstotheirgreatinjury
MASSACHUSETTS 1783: Whereas the principal encouragement to make great and beneficial
exertionsmustexistinthelegalsecurityofthefruitsofstudyandindustryandassuchsecurity
isoneofthenaturalrightsofallmen,therebeingnopropertymorepeculiarlyamansownthanthat
whichisproducedbythelaborofhismind
NEWHAMPSHIRE1783:SubstantiallysameasMassachusetts.
NEW JERSEY 1783: Whereas learning tends to the. embellishment of human nature and as it is
perfectlyagreeabletotheprinciplesofequitythatmenoflearningshouldhavetheprofitsthatmay
arisefromthesaleoftheirworkssecuredtothem
NEWYORK1786:SameasConnecticut.
NORTHCAROLINA1785:Whereasnothingismorestrictlyamansownthanthefruitofhisstudy,
anditisproperthatmenshouldbeencouragedtopursueusefulknowledgebythehopeofre
205.F.W.Dahn,3JPOS346.
206.Solberg,Cop.En.p.113.
207.Solberg,Cop.En.,FirstPart.
758
wardandasthesecurityofliterarypropertymustgreatlytendtoencouragegenius,topromoteuseful
discoveries,andtothegeneralextensionofartsandcommerce
PENNSYLVANIA1784:SubstantiallysameasMaryland.
RHODEISLAND1783:SubstantiallysameasMassachusetts.
SOUTHCAROLINA1784:NoPreamble.
VIRGINIA1785:NoPreamble.
1787:ProposalsforConstitutionalPatentClause[208]
1.Tosecuretoliteraryauthorstheircopyrightsforalimitedtime.(SubmittedbyMadison,according
tohisJournal).
2. To secure to literary authors their copy rights for a limited time. To encourage by (proper)
premiums and provisions the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries. (Recorded by the
DocumentaryHistorysubmittedbyMadison,withoutproper,accordingtoanothersource.)
3.Tosecuretoliteraryauthorstheircopyrightsforalimitedtime.Tosecuretoinventorsofuseful
machinesandimplementsthebenefitstherefor,foralimitedtime.(SubmittedbyMadisonaccording
totheDocumentaryHistory.)
4. To grant patents for useful inventions to secure to authors exclusive rights for (a) limited time.
(Submitted by Pinkney according to Madisons journal, and, without a, according to another
source.)
5. To secure to authors the exclusive rights to their performances and discoveries. (Submitted by
PinkneyaccordingtohisObservations).
1813:JeffersononIntellectualProperty
.Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813 It has been pretended by some, and in England
especially, that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for
theirownlives,butinheritabletotheirheirs.Butwhileitisamootquestionwhethertheoriginofany
kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an
35/36
15/12/2015
hereditaryrighttoinventors.Itisagreedbythosewhohaveseriouslyconsideredthesubjectthatno
individualhas,ofnaturalright,aseparatepropertyinanacreofland,forinstance.Byanuniversal
law,indeed,whatever,whetherfixedormovable,belongstoallmenequallyandincommon,isthe
property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the
propertygoeswithit.Stableownershipisthegiftofsociallaw,andisgivenlateintheprogressof
society.Itwouldbecuriousthenifanidea,thefugitivefermentationofanindividualbrain,
208.K,Fenning,IIJPOS438,
759
could,ofnaturalright,beclaimedinexclusiveandstableproperty.Ifnaturehasmadeonethingless
susceptiblethanallothersofexclusiveproperty,itistheactionofthethinkingpowercalledanidea,
whichanindividual.mayexclusivelypossesssolongashekeepsittohimselfbutthemomentitis
divulged,itforcesitselfintothepossessionofeveryone,andthereceivercannotdispossesshimselfof
it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less because every other possesses the
wholeofit.Hewhoreceivesanideafrommereceivesinstructionhimselfwithoutlesseningmine,as
hewholightshistaperatminereceiveslightwithoutdarkeningmine.Thatideasshouldfreelyspread
fromonetoanotherovertheglobe,forthemoralandmutualinstructionofman,andimprovementof
hiscondition,seemstohavebeenpeculiarlyandbenevolentlydesignedbynature.Whenshemade
themlikefire,expansibleoverallspace,withoutlesseningtheirdensityinanypoint,andliketheair
in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being incapable of confinement or exclusive
appropriation. Inventions then cannot in nature be a subject of property. .Society may give an
exclusiverighttotheprofitsarisingfromthem,asanencouragementtomentopursueideaswhich
may produce utility, but this may or may not be done according to the will and convenience of the
society,withoutclaimorcomplaintfromanybody.Itisafact,as.farasIaminformed,thatEngland
was,untilwecopiedher,theonlycountryonearthwhichever,byagenerallaw,gavealegalrightto
theexclusiveuseofanidea.Insomeothercountriesitissometimesdone,inagreatcase,andbya
special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies
produce more embarrassment than advantage to society and it may be observed that the nations
whichrefusemonopoliesofinventionareasfruitfulasEnglandinnewandusefuldevices.
760
36/36

Prager History of IP 1545-1787 JPOS 1944

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prager History of IP 1545-1787 JPOS 1944

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

15/12/2015

invention, made by himself, relating to glass and mirrors, in1554 [32].

converged in that cosmopolitan center. With her decline, a general movement in

You might also like