tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1853014754915895005..comments2024-03-29T12:23:31.959+00:00Comments on The IPKat: British inventiveness: fact or myth?Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-69550112023425992822010-09-29T15:03:44.056+01:002010-09-29T15:03:44.056+01:00@Anonymous 2:23pm
Check your Collins English Dicti...@Anonymous 2:23pm<br />Check your Collins English Dictionary, which gives both transitive and intransitive uses of 'eject' -- not that what's the Kat had in mind. Typing's a tough job when you've only paws and the voice recognition software can't tell a miaow from a miaou ...Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01123244020588707776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-26682830317602720212010-09-29T14:23:57.984+01:002010-09-29T14:23:57.984+01:00We doubt if 'eject' can be used intransiti...We doubt if 'eject' can be used intransitively.<br /><br /><i>DME</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-28013166209954674072010-09-28T18:21:47.466+01:002010-09-28T18:21:47.466+01:00According to the CIPA Black Book [5th Edition, A ...According to the CIPA Black Book [5th Edition, A 06, page 1215) "The Statute of Monopolies was enacted by Parliament in 1624 (but back-dated to the start of the parliamentary session in 1623) as part of the battle for Parliamentary supremacy over the crown."Ronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-48816493891388199242010-09-28T06:53:25.215+01:002010-09-28T06:53:25.215+01:00Yes, a poll would settle the issue definitively!Yes, a poll would settle the issue definitively!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-71474308948936120802010-09-28T01:20:31.768+01:002010-09-28T01:20:31.768+01:00As a dual Australian and British passport holder (...As a dual Australian and British passport holder (born in Watford), and registered practitioner under a patent law that still defines patentable subject matter by reference to <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/pa1990109/s18.html" rel="nofollow">"manner of manufacture"</a>, I am not disinclined to acknowledge British contributions to patent law, or to technological ingenuity.<br /><br />But let's get real here. As I pointed out in the <a href="http://patentology.blogspot.com/2010/06/are-patent-statutes-unnecessarily.html" rel="nofollow">very first ever posting on my Patentology blog</a>, the <i>Venetian Statute on Industrial Brevets of 1474</i> substantially predates the British Statute of Monopolies of 1623, contains a number of surprisingly modern elements, and was itself probably only a codification of existing practices.<br /><br />Furthermore, the British Statute, which was enacted largely to bring an end to the practice of the King handing out monopolies willy-nilly to his mates, sycophants and financiers required only local novelty and therefore allowed patents to be granted for importing new technologies into the realm, as well as for geunine invention. Historically, this is a common feature of patent statutes in "developing" countries which recognises the economic benefits of bootstrapping the establishment of industries that may already be maturing elsewhere.<br /><br />Enactment of the 1623 Statute clearly, therefore, does not demonstrate any particular inventiveness on the part of the British. In fact, in many areas the country was playing catch-up with continental Europe: the Dutch (who were possibly the first European discoverers of Australia - the British certainly were not) and Italians, at least, were powerhouses of innovation at the time.<br /><br />Finally, Japanese patent law owes more to German law than British law, from its approach to claim construction and infringement, to its provisions for compensation of employee inventors.<br /><br />Frankly, Japan's rise to be a net exporter of innovation and technology is a consequence of post-war economics and Britain (whose empire and influence was by then in decline, in favour of US ascendency) has little to do with it. South Korea is now well on its way to usurping Japan in the patent rankings, and China will undoubtedly one day take its place.<br /><br />When this happens, can we expect CIPA to claim credit for China as well?!<br /><br />PS I did not realise there was any dispute over 1623 vs 1624. Maybe you should hold a poll?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06157794228297387928noreply@blogger.com