Origin of patent law

Industries were flourishing in britain and it was the only country that possessed the most skilled
workers who will dictate the productivity of a country that’s why there was a spree among all
the countries to get more and more skilled workers from the Britain so that they could also
utilise their skills to increase the productivity of their respective economy. There was poaching
and espionage system developed only for this purpose. Britain passed a new act in 1719 to
protect these workers from being poached and allured by other countries and made it an
offense of suborning if they were found to be recruited in foreign countries.. Later machines
came which complicated the matter further and led to the decrease in the demand of the
skilled workers because now it was necessary to acquaint with these machines so that they
could be utilised efficiently. Britain again passed a new act in 1780 namely Tools Act to prohibit
the export of these machines which was subsequently widened to all type of industries which
was earlier confined to certain industries.
The fundamentals of the game had changed completely in the last of 18 th century because of
the advent of disembodied knowledge which was independent of skilled workers and machines.
It was very difficult to control this knowledge as compare to both skilled workers as well as
machines. Now knowledge had been written down that could be understood by anyone who
knew the fundamentals of physics and mechanics. Chemical formula was provided which could
be used to develop new medicines. It was necessary to protect knowledge from being emulated
by others thereby came the patent law to manage the flow of ideas.
The first patent system1 is supposed to have been used by Venice in 1474, when it granted ten
years’ privileges to inventors of ‘new arts and machines’. It was also somewhat haphazardly
used by some German states in the 16th century and by Britain from the 17th century.19 Then,
reflecting the growing importance of disembodied knowledge, it spread very quickly from the
late 18th century, starting with France in 1791, the US in 1793 and Austria in 1794. Most of
today’s rich countries established their patent laws within half a century of the French patent
law.
Depriving poor countries from affordable medicines and other things
During the debate surrounding the HIV/AIDS drugs, the pharmaceutical companies argued that,
without patents, there will be no more new drugs – if anyone can ‘steal’ their inventions, they
would have no reason to invest in inventing new drugs. Citing Abraham Lincoln – the only US
president to be issued a patenti – who said that ‘patent adds the fuel of interest to the fire of
genius’, Harvey Bale, director general of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers Associations, asserted that ‘without [intellectual property rights] the private
sector will not invest the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to develop new vaccines for
AIDS and other infectious and non-infectious diseases.’4 Therefore, the drug companies went
on to say, those who are criticizing the patent system (and other IPRs) are threatening the
1
Inventing the Industrial Revolution: the English Patent System, 1660–1800 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ).
future supply of new ideas (not just drugs), undermining the very productivity of the capitalist
system.
This logic appears reasonable but it is a half truth. Not all people Or organisations working on
developing new ideas are guided by the desire to make money though it’s one of the major
factors in investing for developing new ideas. There are other factors which take
preponderance while doing research such as of serving humanity. Innumerable researches have
been conducted to vindicate this fact that people are working on creating and inventing new
ideas without having appetite for making money.Material factors are not sole factors as being
claimed by these industries.
This is not a fringe phenomenon. A lot of research is conducted by non-profit-seeking
organizations – even in the US. For example, in the year 2000, only 43% of US drugs research
funding came from the pharmaceutical industry itself. 29% came from the US government and
the remaining 28% from private charities and universities.6 So, even if the US were to abolish
pharmaceutical patents tomorrow even then more than half of the total researches would be
still continued.
There are ways in imitating the inventions only in few industries. It can’t be done in all
industries as being claimed by these gigantic industries. In industries wherein it’s very difficult
to imitate and even a slight innovation gives enough rewards to the inventor of a particular
technology despite having no patent law in force.It may be possible because of the natural
advantages accorded to the inventor like reputational advantage, natural increase in
productivity through experience etc. therefore the mantra that only material profit that guides
the investors to invest in generating knowledge is false.
Hypocrisy of the developed countries
When we see history of patent laws in all today’s rich countries then you would be surprised to
find out that they have deliberately shown reluctance in granting intellectual rights to the
foreign products because it was in their mind to borrow ideas from other countries and get
them patented in their own countries so that they could monopolise the field. This practice of
imitating foreign products was common among Germans 2 who will get patent rights on
imported inventions. Despite having amended laws by the Britain to fill this lacunae, the
Germans continued the same practice now by sending pieces in England and getting them
assembled there or by Invisibilising the stamp containing country of origin of products required
by new amended law. This practice was common in all countries.
Despite this history, the Bad Samaritan rich countries are now forcing developing countries to
strengthen the protection of intellectual property rights to a historically unprecedented degree
through the TRIPS agreement and a raft of bilateral free-trade agreements. They argue that

2
For further details, see Williams (1896), p. 138.
stronger protection of intellectual property will encourage the production of new knowledge
and benefit everyone, including the developing countries.
Making even a minute of knowledge Patentable has worsen the technological progress difficult.
The bar of originality has been reduced by the US which led to the spur in patent rights thereby
creating the problem of interlocking patent which exacerbated the problem further. These
negative impacts have been much greater for developing countries. The lower originality bar
set in the rich countries, especially the US, has made the theft of already existing traditional
knowledge from developing countries easier. Much needed medicines have become far more
expensive, as developing countries are not allowed to make (or import) copy drugs any more,
while their political weakness vis-à-vis rich country pharmaceutical companies constrains their
ability to use the public interest provision.
But the biggest problem is, to put it bluntly, that the new IPR system has made economic
development more difficult. When 97% of all patents and the vast majority of copyrights and
trademarks are held by rich countries, the strengthening ofthe rights of IPR-holders means that
acquiring knowledge has become more expensive for developing countries. The World Bank
estimates that, following the TRIPS agreement, the increase in technology licence payments
alone will cost developing countries an extra $45 billion a year, which is nearly half of total
foreign aid given by rich countries ($93 billion a year in 2004–5) 3
Conclusion
All this indicates that everything is not fine in IPR. It has been used as means for exploiting
developing countries in the form of inhibiting them from generating new ideas. Slightest of
innovation has given them patent right which made everything for developing countries
expensive. These poor countries have been compelled to sign and ratify TRIPS which further
made compulsory to pass strong patent laws so that rich countries could take advantage of the
same at the expense of developing countries. These unfair rules have to be fundamentally
changed in order to mete out equal treatment to all countries be it poor or rich for which it’s
necessary to break this monopoly of few industries and raising the bar of originality so that
worthy inventions could only be patented.

3
The IPR expenditure is cited in M. Wolf (2004), Why Globalisation Works (Yale University Press, New Haven), p. 217. The
foreign aid figure is from the OECD.