public is an ethical no less than a legal problem. To reconcile and harmonise the interests of the individual with the interests of the community is within the sphere of Political Economy. To safeguard the two diverging and yet convergent interests by the creation and sanction of legal rights is the province of positive Law. That a matter of such vital importance to the commercial and industrial prosperity of the nation as the protection of inventions by the grant of Letters Patent should have received much attention from the Legislature, the Judges, and the Legal Profession, is only to be expected. There are several well-known standard works on Patent Law, and to their number has recently been added a volume which will immediately command recognition as an authoritative and comprehensive treatise on the subject. The new work on the Law and Practice relating to Letters Patent for Inventions, by Messrs. R. W. Wallace, Q.C., and J. B. Williamson, to which reference will be found in the Review section of this issue will, without doubt, take foremost rank among treatises on this branch of the law. The practical experience in Patent cases of the first-named, and the laborious collection of authority, the careful arrangement, and lucid exposition of the law by both authors, have resulted in the production of a work which marks a distinct advance in the literature of the subject. The early history of patents in English law is the history of monopolies. The granting of monopolies was a recognised branch of the ancient prerogative of the Crown, subject, as indeed was every prerogative right, to the common law limitation that it should be used only for the general good of the community, and not merely for the private emolument or advantage of the Sovereign. Any grant of a monopoly patent, affecting to restrict to an individual or limited number of individuals the right of manufacturing or trading in any commodity already known and in general use, was, therefore, illegal and invalid as being opposed to common right. Upon this principle, it was held by the Court of King's Bench, in the case usually known as the Case of Monopolies*, in which the legality of patents for monopolies was exhaustively argued, that a grant by letters patent to an individual of the sole right of making, importing, and trading in playing cards in England was void and illegal, as amounting to the creation of a monopoly of a known industry. Although the legality of a patent was at common law dependent upon its being granted in respect of a new invention, and not an article previously in use, the indiscriminate and oppressive grant of monopolies in derogation of this principle by the Crown during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I., constituted one of the grievances of the period. The impeachment and severe punishment of Sir Giles Mompesson and Sir Francis Mitchell, who had earned an unenviable notoriety by the enforcement of these illegal patents, is a matter of common historical knowledge. In 1624 was passed the well-known enactment, the Statute of Monopoliest which, after reciting the previous illegal grants of Monopolies "upon misinformations and untrue pretences of public good," declared that the granting of all monopolies and letters patent was "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." Section six of the Statute expressly excepted "any letters patent and grants of privilege for the term of 14 years or under, of the sole working or making of any manner of new manufacture within this realm to the true and first inventor and inventors of such manufactures, which others at the time of Darcy v. Allin, 1603, Coke Rep. Pt. xi. 84 b. † 21 Jac. I., c. 3. making such letters patent and grants shall not use, 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." The Statute was merely declaratory of the Common Law, but fixed the extreme term of a patent grant to 14 years. The foundation of the English Law of Patents is, therefore, the Royal Prerogative, as declared and limited by Statute*. The law relating to Letters Patent for inventions was amended by Statutes of 1835, 1839, 1852, 1853, 1859 and 1870†, which, though effecting various changes, still left room for improvement in the law. The legislation on the subject culminated in the Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Act, 1883, which amended and consolidated the law, and repealed the earlier Statutes with the exception of the essential clauses of the Statute of Monopoliest. The Act of 1883 created the Patent Office, under the control of the Comptroller-General, who acts under the superintendence and direction of the Board of Trade, at which a Register of Patents is to be kept open to public inspection. The Act contains detailed provisions as to the application for, and grant of, Patents; enables the provisional protection of an invention during the period between the date of application and the date of sealing the Patent, and gives full protection after the acceptance of a complete * Section 116 of the Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Act, 1883, 46 and 47 Vict., c. 57, expressly provides that nothing in the Act is to take away, abridge, or prejudicially affect, the prerogative of the Crown in relation to the granting, or withholding of a grant, of any letters patent. + See 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 83; 2 & 3 Vict., c. 67; The Patent Law Amendment Act, 1852, 15 & 16 Vict., c. 83; 16 & 17 Vict., c. 115; 22 Vict., c. 13; The Protection of Inventions Act, 1870, 33 & 34 Vict., c. 27. Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Statute of Monopolies, 21 Jac. 1, c. 3., were repealed by the Act of 1883. specification, empowers the Board of Trade to order the grant of licenses (compulsory licences), enables the extension of the term of a patent under exceptional circumstances, provides for the revocation of a patent on petition in lieu of the former proceding by scire facias, and makes provision for arrangements by the Crown for the protection of patents in foreign States, the Colonies, and India. Certain amendments of the Act of 1883 have been subsequently effected by the Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Amendment Act, 1885, the Patents Act, 1886+, and the Patents, Designs and Trades Marks Act, 1888. Under the Act of 1883 a complete specification was required to be left within nine months, and to be accepted within twelve months, from the date of application, and a patent had to be sealed within fifteen months from the date of application. It being considered expedient to empower the Comptroller to extend these times in certain cases, the Act of 1885 allowed an extension of one month and three months, respectively, after the nine and twelve months for the leaving and acceptance of the complete specification, and, where such extension has been allowed, a further extension of four months after the fifteen months must be allowed for the sealing of the patent. Another improvement introduced by the Act of 1885 is that specifications and drawings are not to be open to public inspection or published unless the application for the patent be accepted. The Act of 1886 enabled the Crown by Order in Council to extend the protection of inventions exhibited at industrial or international exhibitions, to exhibitions out of the United Kingdom. A systematic registration of patent * 48 and 49 Vict., c. 63. agents was established by the Act of 1888, which is, undoubtedly, beneficial in its results. In 1890, a series of regulations known as the Patent Rules, 1890, was published under the authority of the Patents Acts, 1883 to 1888, which prescribes in detail the procedure in applying for patents. These were supplemented by the Patent Rules of 1892 and 1898, Privy Council Rules, 1897, with reference to applications for the extension or prolongation of Letters Patent, and Register of Patent Agents' Rules were published in 1889 and 1891. This brief historical sketch of the legislation on the subject will serve to indicate the gradual way in which, in the course of their statutory development, improvements have been effected in our Patent Laws. It must also be recollected that the interpretation of the Judges is a most important factor in the development, which, indeed, is sufficiently demonstrated by decisions of considerable importance in quite recent cases. For The statutory rule, for example, that a patent may be granted only to the "true and first inventor " has been interpreted by the Courts in no restrictive sense. these words have been judicially defined, so as in certain cases to include persons who, in the popular sense, are not inventors. Thus a person who has merely imported an invention from abroad, if the invention, being in other respects novel and of utility, was not previously known in this country, and a person who first discloses an invention to the public which has been kept secret and not communicated by its first discoverer, are held to be the first and true inventors. In a leading case in which an importer of a foreign invention was recognised as an inventor for the purpose of the Patent Laws, Lord Brougham said: "The Patent Law |