Suchergebnisse

Mr. Mackeigan has done me the honour of contributing, in the November issue of this Journal, full-length "Notes" in answer to my article on "Patents in Relation to Monopoly," published in the August issue. If I now appear for the purpose of making the usual rejoinder it is not to be taken that I do so in any controversial spirit but only in an endeavour to answer his allegations and, if I can, to restore the patent system to the position it was in before it suffered the not inconsiderable knocking about which it has received at his hands. In doing so, I hope that I may make my points as temperately and as gracefully as has my learned friend, whose treatment of the subject from his point of view has been, if I may say so without impertinence, wholly admirable.I must begin by taking sharp issue with Mr. MacKeigan on one point. I did not, as he says, extol the "theoretical adequacy of the Canadian Patent Act as an instrument to prevent abuses of patents." I did and I do extol its practical adequacy for such purpose by reason of the provisions regarding compulsory licensing and revocation in case of abuse. And in this I interpose no mere ipse dixit. It would be a simple matter to append quotations from a multitude of sources which would build up an impressive body of opinion confirmatory of my statement. But I shall content myself with two extracts: The first of these is from an author in the United States who, in discussing cartels and the patent system, observes: "The most concrete and constructive suggestion for patent reform as a solution of the cartel problem calls for the compulsory licensing of patents when they have been used to foster international cartels, e.g. by the allocation of markets. … Compulsory licensing would be expected to remove the most serious obstacles which our patent laws at present interpose to the solution of the cartel problem."

Francis Bacon long ago pointed out that to know truly is to know by causes. I think it can be said with some measure of accuracy that no one can know the patent system and be capable of judging its merits and defects who does not possess a reasonably intimate knowledge of its historical foundations and development. As Mr. Justice Holmes observed, historic continuity with the past is not a duty but only a necessity and if this be so, in no field is it more applicable than in a consideration of patents and monopolies. The superficial writers of history, and their slavish imitators, have persisted in painting the picture of an English citizenry groaning under the grievous weight of monopolies dispensed with a lavish hand by the Tudor and Stuart sovereigns to greedy and avaricious courtiers and favourites who milked the populace dry with their monopolistic exactions. They point to the Statute of Monopolies of 1624 as a milestone in the history of English law—a statute forced upon a reluctant king in much the same spirit as the little affair at Runneymede four centuries earlier. That is not an accurate view. Monopolies were not all regarded as anathema either by the common law or by Parliament in those early days. If they were for the good of the realm their propriety was never questioned. From this theory evolved the thought that a new invention or the setting up of a new manufacture was a laudable thing and a grant of monopoly to its introducer by an exercise of the Crown prerogative was a beneficial act and did not offend against the principle of the common law which regarded as illegal and in restraint of trade any monopoly which took away any freedom or liberty enjoyed by the public before the grant. From the genesis of this policy stemmed the great influx of alien workmen to England which, commencing in the reign of Edward III, was responsible for the introduction of a number of new trades and manufactures and the transmutation of England from an economy of importation to one of domestic production of manufactured goods. An examination of the patents for new inventions and manufactures granted by Elizabeth and James I will show that to them was owed in large measure the great upsurge in domestic manufacture which accompanied the policy of self-sufficiency inaugurated by Cecil and pursued under James. Whatever criticism may be offered of a few of the monopoly grants, that criticism fades before an appraisal of the benefits conferred by the introduction, under the spur of monopoly patents, of the important inventions and manufacturing which began to appear during the Tudor and Stuart periods.

How were the field boundaries created and cultivated by the farmers of prehistoric and Roman Britain transformed into the open fields of medieval England? Historians and archaeologists have posited a complete physical break between the field systems of Roman Britain and the common or open fields of medieval England.
Susan Oosthuizen's fascinating research into the landscape history of the Bourn Valley, just west of Cambridge (an area which has been intensively cultivated for at least the last 3,000 years), has uncovered preserved prehistoric field patterns in the medieval furlongs there – startling in the context of 'champion' England. If it were possible to unravel the relationships between pre-open-field and open-field boundaries in the Valley between about 600 and 1100 AD, then a significant step forward might be taken in our understanding of the origins of medieval open-field systems in general. We might begin to understand the processes by which the fields, woods and pastures that developed over the prehistoric millennia and during the Roman centuries were organised into the completely new landscape of the medieval open fields.
The unexpected discovery of what appears to be an 8th- or 9th-century proto-open-field pattern seems to indicate a fossilising of the process of development from prehistoric to medieval fields, which Susan Oosthuizen seeks to explain by examining the social, administrative and political contexts within which these changes took place. The newly uncovered evidence allows Oosthuizen to propose a new model for the introduction of common fields in England. -

"There is clear evidence from recent research studies that even in large multinational companies purchasing tends to be regarded as a function allied to production and responding to the needs of marketing." The dependence of procurement operations on the trend of sales was recognised in a pioneering article. It organised purchasing strategies around the concept of product life cycle (PLC). In turn, this article served as the basis for field research, which verified much of the model. Meantime, independent of these two investigations, other models of purchasing activities used the same integrating concept. As will be shown, recent experience and research have substantially modified and enriched the earlier PLC models.