The Statute of Monopolies (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.
The statute repealed some past and future patents and monopolies but preserved exceptions: one of these was for patents for novel inventions.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". 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 Stuart 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.Pila (2001) p.210 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.Klitzke (1959) p.624 An exceptional example (considered the first full patent in England) was issued to John of Utynam on 3 April 1449, granting him a monopoly.Klitzke (1959) p.627 Overseas, the practice of granting full industrial patents and monopolies became common in Italian states by the 1420s.Pila (2001) p.211
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.Pila (2001) p.212 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.Ramsey (1936) p.7.
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;Pila (2001) p.213 at the same time, Elizabeth revoked a number of the more restrictive and damaging monopolies.Ramsey (1936) p.8 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. 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.Kyle (1998) p.206 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.Klitzke (1959) p.649
Act Sections 1–5 Section 1 of the statute provided that:
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.Dent (2009) p.441
Section 2 of the statute provided that all future patents granted should be determined by the common law, and not otherwise, while section 3 of the statute 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 of the statute provided that if anyone was interfered with 40 days after the statute was passed due to a patent or monopoly, any goods seized or persons imprisoned would be returned to their owners and released respectively.
Section 5 of the act was repealed by section 1 of, and the schedule to, the Statute Law Revision Act 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 125), which came into force on 28 July 1863.
Sections 6–9
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:
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.Pila (2001) p.214 Section 7 provided that the statute 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 of the statute provided that the rejection of letters patent and licenses did not extend to corporations over towns, such as the City of London Corporation.Nachbar (2005) p.1352
Section 12: Coals from Newcastle The Hostmen of Newcastle claimed the legal monopoly of exporting coals from the river Tyne to any town in England. The government of Elizabeth I was in favour of the monopoly because it could use the Hostmen to collect a tax on coal. The monopoly existed by 1600 and probably much earlier; until the mid-Victorian era, most of London's coal was shipped from the river Tyne.See the references cited in the article Limitation of the Vend.
Although the Statute of Monopolies declared monopolies null and void, section 12 was included to preserve the rights of the Newcastle Hostmen:
The monopoly was vigorously exercised until about 1720 — the Hostmen often seized coals laden aboard ship without their authority — but was gradually abandoned over doubts about the wording.Dendy (1901) pp.xiii-xv, xix-xx, xxviii-xxxi, xxxv, xxxvi, xliii, xlv.
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 MarchIt moved to 1 January in 1752 following the enactment of the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750). 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.Partridge v Strange and Croker (1553) 1 Plowd 77 (75 ER 123). This changed with the Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793 (33 Geo. 3. c. 13). So legally the act was commenced in February 1623, but in terms of historical dating it was commenced and was passed in 1624.Johnson (2017), p 31.
Significance
The statute is worded "strongly and broadly", and other than the exceptions mainly repeated the existing common law.Nachbar (2005) p.1351 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.Dent (2009) p.416 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.Mossoff (2001) p.1276 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".Bloxam (1957) p.157