“…Rather, the issuing of patents of monopoly was repurposed: in Davies's words (1932, p. 396): … the Patent System was introduced into England as a system in the second year of Elizabeth's reign [1561]. (capitalisation and emphasis in the original)In Pastorino's words (2009, p. 647): Initially introduced to favor the growth of new industries and technologies in England and to increase state revenues, Elizabeth's granting system expanded to include licenses for ordinary industries …Which led the Queen into selling patents of monopoly for entire, pre‐existing, industries 4…”
Section: The House Of Commons Debates Monopoliesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…And patents of monopoly would be time‐limited: so, for example, in February 1614 Edmund Brunt received a privilege “of 21 yeres of the benefit of a new invencion for dressing and boulting of meale according to a modell w ch is to be delivered His Majestie Attorney Generall [i.e. Francis Bacon]” (Signet Office Docquet Book, SO 3/5, February 1614, reproduced in Pastorino, 2017, p. 764).…”
Section: The 1624 Statute Of Monopoliesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Which is why patents for invention were often taken out by members of the elite. As we saw above, Pastorino (2017) has chronicled how, between 1607 to 1617, Parliament awarded 40 patents for invention, and amongst the patentees of invention were Lord Philip Herbert, Lord Edmund Sheffield, Lord Edward Somerset, Sir John Bourchier, Sir Thomas Howard, Sir Robert Mansell, Sir David Murray, and Sir Edward Zouch.…”
Section: The English Elite As Innovatorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The research culture that England had developed by the turn of the seventeenth century was commercial as well as academic. So in 1603 the issuance of patents for inventions was institutionalised by the creation of the Commissioners for Suits; and, in his study of Francis Bacon's career, Pastorino (2017) has chronicled how, during the ten years 1607-17 when Bacon was a Commissioner for Suits, Parliament issued 40 patents for invention for advances in a range of technologies including for: the making of copper by dissolution; water mills; water pumps; the tillage of seeds; the conversion of iron into steel; the making of salt; and the making of glass by sea coal and pit coal.…”
Section: Patents For Invention: the Turning Point In 1603mentioning
The English economy during the sixteenth century was increasingly captured by monopolists, with dire consequences in aggregate. Yet, though many Members of Parliament owned patents of monopoly, on 20 November 1601 the House of Commons agreed, with no voices raised in opposition, to void all such patents. That collective decision helped shift the English economy from a non‐cooperative to a cooperative game, and thus from non‐competition to competition, so taking a key prefatory step towards the English Industrial Revolution.
“…Rather, the issuing of patents of monopoly was repurposed: in Davies's words (1932, p. 396): … the Patent System was introduced into England as a system in the second year of Elizabeth's reign [1561]. (capitalisation and emphasis in the original)In Pastorino's words (2009, p. 647): Initially introduced to favor the growth of new industries and technologies in England and to increase state revenues, Elizabeth's granting system expanded to include licenses for ordinary industries …Which led the Queen into selling patents of monopoly for entire, pre‐existing, industries 4…”
Section: The House Of Commons Debates Monopoliesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…And patents of monopoly would be time‐limited: so, for example, in February 1614 Edmund Brunt received a privilege “of 21 yeres of the benefit of a new invencion for dressing and boulting of meale according to a modell w ch is to be delivered His Majestie Attorney Generall [i.e. Francis Bacon]” (Signet Office Docquet Book, SO 3/5, February 1614, reproduced in Pastorino, 2017, p. 764).…”
Section: The 1624 Statute Of Monopoliesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Which is why patents for invention were often taken out by members of the elite. As we saw above, Pastorino (2017) has chronicled how, between 1607 to 1617, Parliament awarded 40 patents for invention, and amongst the patentees of invention were Lord Philip Herbert, Lord Edmund Sheffield, Lord Edward Somerset, Sir John Bourchier, Sir Thomas Howard, Sir Robert Mansell, Sir David Murray, and Sir Edward Zouch.…”
Section: The English Elite As Innovatorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The research culture that England had developed by the turn of the seventeenth century was commercial as well as academic. So in 1603 the issuance of patents for inventions was institutionalised by the creation of the Commissioners for Suits; and, in his study of Francis Bacon's career, Pastorino (2017) has chronicled how, during the ten years 1607-17 when Bacon was a Commissioner for Suits, Parliament issued 40 patents for invention for advances in a range of technologies including for: the making of copper by dissolution; water mills; water pumps; the tillage of seeds; the conversion of iron into steel; the making of salt; and the making of glass by sea coal and pit coal.…”
Section: Patents For Invention: the Turning Point In 1603mentioning
The English economy during the sixteenth century was increasingly captured by monopolists, with dire consequences in aggregate. Yet, though many Members of Parliament owned patents of monopoly, on 20 November 1601 the House of Commons agreed, with no voices raised in opposition, to void all such patents. That collective decision helped shift the English economy from a non‐cooperative to a cooperative game, and thus from non‐competition to competition, so taking a key prefatory step towards the English Industrial Revolution.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
