Patents in a capitalist economy

Abstract

It should be evident now that patents for invention were not all they might seem. Their reliability as evidence of technical change has been questioned by the discovery of interference from crown patronage and revenue protection, the overall lack of scrutiny, the deterrence of high costs and the heterodox uses to which patents were put. Reasons have been advanced why both established manufacturers and independent inventors might neglect, or decide not, to patent their inventions and improvements, and why the nature of their invention and the type of industry to which it related were important factors in this decision. The implication of this is that we need to be aware not only of legislative changes, such as the 1852 Patents Amendment Act, and shifts in institutional policy, but also of the far more subtle developments occasioned by the different uses discovered for patents by the system's clients. Such a loosely administered institution was vulnerable to the impact of external, economic influences. Further evidence that patents should be collectively interpreted in an economic framework comes from an analysis of patentees by occupation, place of residence and type of invention. It reveals the emergence during the eighteenth century of two major patenting contexts. One was firmly based in the London mercantile and manufacturing community, chiefly among the higher status crafts; the other in the manufacturing districts of the West Midlands and North-west. What both contexts shared was a highly competitive environment and a degree of capitalization unusual for that period.