Statute of Monopolies

Last updated

Statute of Monopolies [1]
Act of Parliament
Coat of Arms of England (1603-1649).svg
Parliament of England
Long title An Act concerning Monopolies and Dispensations with penall Lawes and the Forfeyture thereof. [2]
Citation 21 Jas. 1. c. 3
Introduced by Sir Edward Coke
Territorial extent England and Wales
Dates
Royal assent 29 May 1624
Commencement 12 February 1624
Other legislation
Amended by
Status: Partially repealed
Text of the Statute of Monopolies 1623 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk.

The Statute of Monopolies [1] (21 Jas. 1. c. 3) was an act of the Parliament of England notable as the first statutory expression of English patent law. Patents evolved from letters patent, issued by the monarch to grant monopolies over particular industries to skilled individuals with new techniques. Originally intended to strengthen England's economy by making it self-sufficient and promoting new industries, the system gradually became seen as a way to raise money (through charging patent-holders) without having to incur the public unpopularity of a tax. Elizabeth I particularly used the system extensively, issuing patents for common commodities such as starch and salt. Unrest eventually persuaded her to turn the administration of patents over to the common law courts, but her successor, James I, used it even more. Despite a committee established to investigate grievances and excesses, Parliament made several efforts to further curtail the monarch's power. The result was the Statute of Monopolies, passed on 29 May 1624 (although at the time this was thought to be 1623).

Contents

The statute repealed some past and future patents and monopolies but preserved exceptions: one of these was for patents for novel inventions. Seen as a key moment in the evolution of patent law, the statute has also been described as "one of the landmarks in the transition of [England's] economy from the feudal to the capitalist". [3] Even with the statute in force, it took over a century for a comprehensive legal doctrine around patents to come into existence, and James I's successor Charles I regularly abused the patents system by ensuring that all cases relating to his actions were heard in conciliar courts, which he controlled. The English Civil War and the resulting English Restoration finally curtailed this system. The statute is still the basis for Australian law, and until the United Kingdom began following the European Patent Convention in 1977, was also a strong pillar of the United Kingdom's intellectual property law.

Background

Historically, English patent law was based on custom and the common law, not on statute. It began as the Crown granted patents as a form of economic protection to ensure high industrial production. As gifts from the Crown, there was no judicial review, oversight or consideration, and no actual law developed around patents. [4] This practice came from the guilds, groups who were controlled by the Crown and held monopolies over particular industries. By the 14th century the economy of England was lagging behind that of other European nations, with the guilds too small to control industrial production successfully. To remedy this, Edward II began encouraging foreign workmen and inventors to settle in England, offering "letters of protection" that protected them from guild policy on the condition that they train English apprentices and pass on their knowledge. The first recorded letter of protection was given in 1331. The letters did not grant a full monopoly; rather they acted as an extended passport, allowing foreign workers to travel to England and practice their trade. [5] An exceptional example (considered the first full patent in England) was issued to John of Utynam on 3 April 1449, granting him a monopoly. [6] Overseas, the practice of granting full industrial patents and monopolies became common in Italian states by the 1420s. [7]

Over the next century, the granting of full industrial patents became a more common practice in England; the next record is a letter from 1537 to Thomas Cromwell, Henry VIII's private secretary, from Antonio Guidotti, a Venetian silk-merchant. Guidotti had persuaded a group of Venetian silk-makers to practice in England, and wanted the king to grant him letters patent protecting their monopoly to grow silk for 15 or 20 years. This was granted, and Henry's son Edward VI followed up with a grant of letters patent to Henry Smyth, who hoped to introduce foreign glassworking techniques into England. This process continued after Elizabeth I came to the throne, with formal procedures set out in 1561 to issue letters patent to any new industry, allowing monopolies. [8] The granting of these patents was highly popular with the monarch, both before and after the Statute of Monopolies, because of the potential for raising revenue. A patentee was expected to pay heavily for the patent, and unlike a tax raise (another method of raising Crown money) any public unrest as a result of the patent was normally directed at the patentee, not the monarch. [9]

Over time, this became more and more problematic; instead of temporary monopolies on specific, imported industries, long-term monopolies came about over more common commodities, including salt and starch. These "odious monopolies" led to a showdown between the Crown and Parliament, in which it was agreed in 1601 to turn the power to administer patents over to the common law courts; [10] at the same time, Elizabeth revoked a number of the more restrictive and damaging monopolies. [11] Even given a string of judicial decisions criticising and overruling such monopolies, James I, Elizabeth I's successor, continued using patents to create monopolies. Despite the Committee of Grievances, a body chaired by Sir Edward Coke that abolished a large number of monopolies, a wave of protest occurred at the expansion of the system. [11] On 27 March 1621, James suggested the House of Commons draw up a list of the three most objectionable patents, and he would "give Life to it, without alteration", but by this time a statute was already being prepared by Coke. [12] After passing on 12 May 1621 it was thrown out by the House of Lords, but a Statute of Monopolies was finally passed by Parliament on 29 May 1624. [13]

Act

Sections 1–5

Section 1 said that:

all Monopolies, and all Commissions, Grants, Licences, Charters and Letters Patents heretofore made or granted, or hereafter to be made or granted, to any Person or Persons, Bodies Politick or Corporate whatsoever, of or for the sole Buying, Selling, Making, Working or Using of any Thing within this Realm, or the Dominion of Wales ... or of any other Monopolies, or of Power, Liberty or Faculty, to dispense with any others, or to give Licence or Toleration to do, use or exercise any Thing against the Tenor or Purport of any Law or Statute ... and all Proclamations, Inhibitions, Restraints, Warrants of Assistants, and all other Matters and Things whatsoever, any way tending to the Instituting, Erecting, Strengthening, Furthering or Countenancing of the same or any of them ... are altogether contrary to the Laws of this Realm, and so are and shall be utterly void and of none Effect, and in no wise to be put in Use or Execution. [14]

Crucially, this rendered all past, present and future patents and monopolies null and void. Patents were normally divided into three categories; patents for a particular invention, patents exempting a patent-holder from legislation, and patents for a particular trade or industry. Section 1, however, for the first time discussed a new category of patents; those "of Power, Liberty or Faculty". These patents were normally used in relation to penal laws, to "farm out" the business of administering to criminals and dispensing justice to private companies and individuals. The statute, in a break from previous law, emphasised that this power lay only within Parliament. [15] Section 2 provided that all future patents granted should be determined by the common law, and not otherwise, while Section 3 emphasised that companies and individuals now or in the future in possession of patents should not be allowed to exercise them. Sections 4 and 5 provided that if anyone was interfered with 40 days after the Statute of Monopolies was passed due to a patent or monopoly, any goods seized or persons imprisoned would be returned to their owners and released respectively. [14]

Sections 6–9

The Court of King's Bench, which the Statute of Monopolies explicitly exempted from its limitations on penal administration Court of King's Bench.JPG
The Court of King's Bench, which the Statute of Monopolies explicitly exempted from its limitations on penal administration

The most important part of the statute is Section 6, which lays out the exceptions to the rules preventing any kind of monopoly or patent. It stated that the previous provisions:

shall not extend to any letters patents (b) and grants of privilege for the term of fourteen years or under, hereafter to be made, of the sole working or making of any manner of new manufactures within this realm (c) to the true and first inventor (d) and inventors of such manufactures, which others at the time of making such letters patents and grants shall not use (e), so as also they be not contrary to the law nor mischievous to the state by raising prices of commodities at home, or hurt of trade, or generally inconvenient (f): the same fourteen years to be acccounted from the date of the first letters patents or grant of such privilege hereafter to be made, but that the same shall be of such force as they should be if this act had never been made, and of none other (g). [16]

Essentially, this established a wide area in which patents could be granted, on the condition that monopolies lasted no longer than 14 years. These patents would apply to any new "manner" of "manufacture", with "manufacture" referring both to the creation of an object, and the design for that object. [17] Section 7 provided that the Act did not prejudice or overrule any previous statutory measures, while Section 8 provided that the restoration to Parliament of the power to administer penal law did not in any way infringe upon the right of the king, Court of King's Bench, Court of Common Pleas or other criminal courts to order someone's imprisonment. Section 9 provided that the rejection of letters patent and licenses did not extend to corporations over towns, such as the City of London Corporation. [18]

Dating of the Statute of Monopolies

The Statute of Monopolies is properly cited without a year. However, when it is cited with a year there are writers who use 1623 and some who use 1624. The confusion arises because the parliamentary session in which it passed assembled on 12 February 1624 (using modern dating), but at the time this would have been 12 February 1623 (as the New Year in England at the time was on Lady Day, 25 March [19] ). The act received royal assent on 29 May 1624. At the time all acts passed within a session commenced on the first day of the session. [20] So legally the act was commenced in 1623, but in terms of historical dating it was commenced and passed in 1624. [21]

Significance

Charles I, who continued abusing the patents system even after the Statute of Monopolies King Charles I after original by van Dyck.jpg
Charles I, who continued abusing the patents system even after the Statute of Monopolies

The statute is worded "strongly and broadly", and other than the exceptions mainly repeated the existing common law. [14] The statute has long been considered a key moment in patent law; Chris Dent, writing in the Melbourne University Law Review, identifies it as "a significant marker in the history of patents" with continuing importance, although it is neither the start nor end of patent law. [22] Despite the statute, the courts did not develop a comprehensive and coherent legal doctrine for patent law for more than a century after the statute came into force. [23] Not only is it highly important within patent law, it also played a large role in economics; G. A. Bloxam, writing in the Journal of Industrial Economics, identifies the passage of the Statute of Monopolies as "one of the landmarks in the transition of [England's] economy from the feudal to the capitalist". [3]

As well as being significant in relation to patent law, Whig historians have also identified it as the first infringement upon the monarch's Royal Prerogative, and one of the first occasions in which the self-confident House of Commons overruled the king, eventually leading to the English Civil War. [24] Chris R. Kyle, writing in the Journal of Legal History, notes that this is not the case; not only did the Statute of Monopolies only restate the previous common law, leading to no infringement upon the Royal Prerogative, James I was in the later stages of the bill supportive of its principles. [25] James I was not opposed to the motion; during the 1621 session of Parliament, he voided several monopolies (included those for silver thread and inns), and both James and the Privy Council were active during the passage of the bill to ensure it was supported. [26] Furthermore, the Prince, later Charles I offered amendments in the House of Lords to support its passage. [27]

The statute required extensive judicial action to make it work, particularly on the interpretation of Section 6. Sir Edward Coke, in his Institutes of the Lawes of England , wrote that

[N]ew manufacture must have seven properties. First, it must be for twenty-one years or under. Secondly, it must be granted to the first and true inventor. Thirdly, it must be of such manufactures, which any other at the making of such letters patent did not use ... Fourthly, the privilege must not be contrary to law ... Fifthly, nor mischievous to the state, by raising the prices of commodities at home. In every such new manufacture that deserves a privilege, there must be urgens necessitas et evidens utilitas. Sixthly, nor to the hurt of trade ... Seventhly, nor generally inconvenient. [28]

The subject was also discussed in Bircot's Case, where it was decided that an inventive improvement to an existing industry or invention was not a new "material", and could not be patented; such an improvement was described as "to put but a new button to an old coat". [29] Hasting's Case confirmed that a patent would not be issued, even for a new "material", that was extremely close to an old one, something originally laid down in Matthey's Case. [30] The statute did not stop the monarch issuing such patents in return for money; after James I's death, Charles I continued issuing them and avoided having to obey the law by having any cases heard in the conciliar courts, such as the Star Chamber. In response to this abuse and others, the Star Chamber was abolished by the Habeas Corpus Act 1640. [31] After the English Restoration, these activities largely ceased because of the dominant power of Parliament and the Bill of Rights 1689, which completely abolished the king's ability to disobey or alter statute. [32]

The Statute of Monopolies dominated patent law for centuries; it was received into the laws of many common law jurisdictions and still forms the basis for the modern patent laws of those countries: for example, the patent law of Australia is dominated by the Patents Act 1990, which states that one test for if something is patentable is if it relates to "a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies". [33]

In England and Wales, some sections of the statute are still technically in force, [34] although the Statute Law Revision Act 1863, Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), Statute Law Revision Act 1948, Administration of Justice Act 1965 and Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969 repealed most of the legislation. In practice however, with the Patents Act 1977 (which brought the United Kingdom into line with the European Patent Convention), the statute has been implicitly repealed within England and Wales. [35]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Statute of Anne</span> 1710 legislation in Great Britain regulating copyright

The Statute of Anne, also known as the Copyright Act 1709 or the Copyright Act 1710, was an act of the Parliament of Great Britain passed in 1710, which was the first statute to provide for copyright regulated by the government and courts, rather than by private parties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edward Coke</span> English lawyer and judge (1552–1634)

Sir Edward Coke was an English barrister, judge, and politician. He is often considered the greatest jurist of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Royal assent</span> Formal approval of a proposed law in monarchies

Royal assent is the method by which a monarch formally approves an act of the legislature, either directly or through an official acting on the monarch's behalf. In some jurisdictions, royal assent is equivalent to promulgation, while in others that is a separate step. Under a modern constitutional monarchy, royal assent is considered little more than a formality. Even in nations such as the United Kingdom, Norway, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein and Monaco which still, in theory, permit their monarch to withhold assent to laws, the monarch almost never does so, except in a dire political emergency or on advice of government. While the power to veto by withholding royal assent was once exercised often by European monarchs, such an occurrence has been very rare since the eighteenth century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Letters patent</span> Type of published legal instrument

Letters patent are a type of legal instrument in the form of a published written order issued by a monarch, president or other head of state, generally granting an office, right, monopoly, title or status to a person or corporation. Letters patent can be used for the creation of corporations or government offices, or for granting city status or a coat of arms. Letters patent are issued for the appointment of representatives of the Crown, such as governors and governors-general of Commonwealth realms, as well as appointing a Royal Commission. In the United Kingdom, they are also issued for the creation of peers of the realm.

The Regency Acts are Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed at various times, to provide a regent in the event of the reigning monarch being incapacitated or a minor. Prior to 1937, Regency Acts were passed only when necessary to deal with a specific situation. In 1937, the Regency Act 1937 made general provision for a regent, and established the office of Counsellor of State, a number of whom would act on the monarch's behalf when the monarch was temporarily absent from the realm or experiencing an illness that did not amount to legal incapacity. This Act, as modified by the Regency Acts of 1943 and 1953, forms the main law relating to regency in the United Kingdom today.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of patent law</span> Legal protection of rights in an invention

The history of patents and patent law is generally considered to have started with the Venetian Statute of 1474.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of New Zealand</span> Uncodified national constitution

The constitution of New Zealand is the sum of laws and principles that determine the political governance of New Zealand. Unlike many other nations, New Zealand has no single constitutional document. It is an uncodified constitution, sometimes referred to as an "unwritten constitution", although the New Zealand constitution is in fact an amalgamation of written and unwritten sources. The Constitution Act 1986 has a central role, alongside a collection of other statutes, orders in Council, letters patent, decisions of the courts, principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and unwritten traditions and conventions. There is no technical difference between ordinary statutes and law considered "constitutional law"; no law is accorded higher status. In most cases the New Zealand Parliament can perform "constitutional reform" simply by passing acts of Parliament, and thus has the power to change or abolish elements of the constitution. There are some exceptions to this though – the Electoral Act 1993 requires certain provisions can only be amended following a referendum.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Act of Uniformity 1551</span> United Kingdom law of religion and the Church of England

The Act of Uniformity 1551, sometimes referred to as the Act of Uniformity 1552, or the Uniformity Act 1551 was an Act of the Parliament of England.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Act of Uniformity 1548</span> United Kingdom law of religion

The Act of Uniformity 1548, the Act of Uniformity 1549, the Uniformity Act 1548, or the Act of Equality was an Act of the Parliament of England, passed on 21 January 1549.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tenures Abolition Act 1660</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Tenures Abolition Act 1660, sometimes known as the Statute of Tenures, was an Act of the Parliament of England which changed the nature of several types of feudal land tenure in England. The long title of the Act was An Act takeing away the Court of Wards and Liveries, and Tenures in Capite, and by Knights-service, and Purveyance, and for settling a Revenue upon his Majesty in Lieu thereof.

The history of competition law refers to attempts by governments to regulate competitive markets for goods and services, leading up to the modern competition or antitrust laws around the world today. The earliest records traces back to the efforts of Roman legislators to control price fluctuations and unfair trade practices. Throughout the Middle Ages in Europe, kings and queens repeatedly cracked down on monopolies, including those created through state legislation. The English common law doctrine of restraint of trade became the precursor to modern competition law. This grew out of the codifications of United States antitrust statutes, which in turn had considerable influence on the development of European Community competition laws after the Second World War. Increasingly, the focus has moved to international competition enforcement in a globalised economy.

United Kingdom competition law is affected by both British and European elements. The Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002 are the most important statutes for cases with a purely national dimension. However, prior to Brexit, if the effect of a business' conduct would reach across borders, the European Commission has competence to deal with the problems, and exclusively EU law would apply. Even so, the pre-Brexit section 60 of the Competition Act 1998 provides that UK rules are to be applied in line with European jurisprudence. Like all competition law, that in the UK has three main tasks.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Succession to the Crown Act 1707</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Succession to the Crown Act 1707 is an Act of Parliament of the Parliament of Great Britain. It is still partly in force in Great Britain.

The history of United States patent law started even before the U.S. Constitution was adopted, with some state-specific patent laws. The history spans over more than three centuries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Beerhouse Act 1830</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Beerhouse Act 1830 was an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which liberalised the regulations governing the brewing and sale of beer. It was modified by subsequent legislation and finally repealed in 1993. It was one of the Licensing Acts 1828 to 1886.

Australian patent law is law governing the granting of a temporary monopoly on the use of an invention, in exchange for the publication and free use of the invention after a certain time. The primary piece of legislation is the Patents Act 1990. Patents are administered by the Commonwealth Government agency IP Australia. Australia is a member state of the World Intellectual Property Organization, and compliant with Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. This makes Australian patent law broadly comparable with patent law in other major countries.

Sir Nicholas Fuller was an English barrister and Member of Parliament. After studying at Christ's College, Cambridge, Fuller became a barrister of Gray's Inn. His legal career there began prosperously—he was employed by the Privy Council to examine witnesses—but was hampered later by his representation of the Puritans, a religious tendency which did not conform with the established Church of England. Fuller was repeatedly in contention with the ecclesiastical courts, including the Star Chamber and Court of High Commission, and was once expelled for the zeal with which he defended his client. In 1593 he was returned as the Member of Parliament for St Mawes, where he campaigned against the extension of recusancy laws. Outside of Parliament, he successfully brought a patents case which not only undermined the right of the Crown to issue patents but accurately predicted the attitude taken by the Statute of Monopolies two decades later.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">4th Parliament of King James I</span>

The 4th Parliament of King James I was the fourth and last Parliament of England of the reign of James I of England, summoned on 30 December 1623, sitting from 19 February 1624 to 29 May 1624, and thereafter kept out of session with repeated prorogations, it was dissolved on the death of the King on 27 March 1625. The Speaker of the House of Commons was Sir Thomas Crewe, the member for Aylesbury.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Common Informers Act 1623</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Common Informers Act 1623 was an Act of the Parliament of England.

Pennock v. Dialogue, 27 U.S. 1 (1829), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held invalid a patent on a method of making hose, because the inventor had commercially exploited the invention for years before filing the patent application. The case has been cited many times for the proposition that the U.S. patent system was not established for the purpose of enriching inventors or their financiers but rather for the purpose of furthering the public interest by stimulating technological progress.

References

  1. 1 2 The citation of this act by this short title was authorised by section 5 of, and schedule 2 to, the Statute Law Revision Act 1948. Due to the repeal of those provisions, it is now authorised by section 19(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978.
  2. ↑ These words are printed against this act in the second column of schedule 2 to the Statute Law Revision Act 1948, which is headed "Title".
  3. 1 2 Bloxam (1957) p.157
  4. ↑ Pila (2001) p.210
  5. ↑ Klitzke (1959) p.624
  6. ↑ Klitzke (1959) p.627
  7. ↑ Pila (2001) p.211
  8. ↑ Pila (2001) p.212
  9. ↑ Ramsey (1936) p.7.
  10. ↑ Pila (2001) p.213
  11. 1 2 Ramsey (1936) p.8
  12. ↑ Kyle (1998) p.206
  13. ↑ Klitzke (1959) p.649
  14. 1 2 3 Nachbar (2005) p.1351
  15. ↑ Dent (2009) p.441
  16. ↑ Statute of Monopolies s.6
  17. ↑ Pila (2001) p.214
  18. ↑ Nachbar (2005) p.1352
  19. ↑ It moved to 1 January in 1752 following the enactment of the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750
  20. ↑ Partridge v Strange and Croker (1553) 1 Plowd 77 (75 ER 123). This changed with the Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793.
  21. ↑ Johnson (2017), p 31.
  22. ↑ Dent (2009) p.416
  23. ↑ Mossoff (2001) p.1276
  24. ↑ Kyle (1998) p.203
  25. ↑ Kyle (1998) p.216
  26. ↑ Kyle (1998) p.217
  27. ↑ Johnson (2017) p. 48.
  28. ↑ Pila (2001) p.215
  29. ↑ Pila (2001) p.216
  30. ↑ Pila (2001) p.217
  31. ↑ Nachbar (2005) p.1353
  32. ↑ Nachbar (2005) p.1354
  33. ↑ Dent (2009) p.415
  34. ↑ UK Legislation, Statute of Monopolies 1623: latest available version (revised), accessed 25 May 2021: sections 1, 6, 7 and 9 are shown as still in force
  35. ↑ Dent (2009) p.420

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.