Journal of the Society of Arts : Volume XLIX, No. 2527 [‎697v] (20/36)

432
JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF ARTS.
[Afrit 26, igoi.
of Elizabeth. During- the latter’s reig-n serious
complaints were raised in the House of Com
mons in reference to abuses of this privilege.*
It is significant that the Queen did not
pretend that she could create monopolies at
her pleasure, but the preambles to the instru
ments conveying the grants always set forth
some public benefit to be derived from their
action. Towards the end of her reign the
incidents of a valid monopoly patent were
stated by Fuller, one of the counsel for the
defendant in the case of Darcy v. Allin, in the
following passage, which has been frequently
quoted as a correct exposition of the law :—f
“ Now therefore, I will shew you how the Judges
have heretofore allowed of monopoly patents, which
is that where any man of his own charge and industry
or of his own wit and invention doth bring any trade
into the Realm, or any engine tending to the further
ance of trade that never was used before, and that
for the good of the Realm : that in such cases the
King may grant him a monopoly patent for some
reasonable time until the subjects may learn the same,
in consideration of the good that he does bring by
his invention to the commonwealth ; otherwise not.”
In spite of promises to the contrary, the
abuses in granting monopolies continued, until,
during the first Parliament of James I., a
“ Committee of Grievances ” was appointed to
investigate the whole subject.!
As a result, after a protracted struggle with
the King, the “ Statute of Monopolies ( 1623 ) ”
was passed, by which all monopolies were
abolished with a few exceptions of a temporary
character, and the most important exception
set out in Section 6 :—§
Provided also that any declaration
before mentioned shall not extend to any letters patent
and grants of privilege for the term of 14 years or
under, hereafter to be made, of the sole working or
making of any manner of new manufactures within
this Realm to the true and first inventor and inventors
of such manufactures, which others at the time of
making such letters patent and grants shall not use,
so as also they be not contrary to the law nor mis
chievous to the State by raising prices of commodities
at home, or hurt of trade, or generally inconvenient
On the limiting words, “ within this Realm,”
the interpretation has been based, which Lord
Brougham expressed in the following terms 1 |
The Patent-law is framed in a way to include two
speciesjaf public benefactors; they'are those who
hncy. Brit., vol. xvi., pagv 7S7.
" 1 " W . and W., page 7.
Enc>. Brit., vol. xvi., page 7S7.
? . and AY., page 6 o 3 .
II W. and A\ ., page 32.
benefit the public by their ingenuity, industry, and
science and invention and personal capability; the
other those who benefit the public without ant-
ingenuity or invention of their own, by the importa
tion of the results of foreign inventions. Now the
latter is a benefit to the public incontestably, and
therefore they render themselves entitled to be put
upon somewhat, if not entirely the same footing as
inventors.”
On these principles the whole patent legisla
tion of the United Kingdom has been founded,
but as Sections 10, u, and 12 of the “Statute of
Monopolies (1623)” and all subsequent Acts or
sections of Acts referring to patents were
revoked* by the “ Patents Act (1883)” and its
amending Acts (1885-88), it would be super
fluous to enter into the details of the various
stages of its development, and it is sufficient
to give a succinct statement of the law as it
now stands.
Monopolies for a limited period are granted
to such persons who invent or import useful
novelties, provided they describe in their
specification the invention or importation in
such a manner that a skilled person can carry
out the manufacture after the patent has
expired.
Every application for provisional protection
and every complete specification is submitted
to the Examiner, who has to consider and
report to the Comptroller on the following
points;—f
1. \\ hether the applicant has fairly described
the nature of the invention.
2. Whether the specifications and drawings
(if any) have been prepared in the prescribed
manner.
3. Whether the title sufficiently indicates the
subject matter.
4. W hether the invention particularly des
cribed in the complete specification is sub
stantially the same as that described in the
provisional specification.
W- here the Comptroller, after receiving the
report of the examiner, refuses to accept a
specification, or requires an amendment, the
applicant may appeal from him to the law
officer, whose decision is final.
I he acceptance of the complete specification
is advertised, and any person may give notice
of opposition, within two months, to the grant
of the patent on certain very limited grounds ;
if there is no opposition, or if it fails, the patent
is sealed.
Simple as this procedure is, the Patent-law
• AY. and A\ r ., page 643.
J ^ ' an ^ " •> P a g- es 285 and 288 ; also Section 6, 7 and 9
of “ Patents Act, 1883.”