556 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



(2) Extension of the Area covered by Patent Protection. — The 

 originator of a scientific discovery cannot obtain patent pro- 

 tection for the practical applications of his discovery, whatever 

 may be their importance to the welfare of the community, unless 

 they are by their nature " manufactures " within the meaning of 

 the statute of James I. This statute was the direct outcome of 

 the economic conditions which prevailed at the time it was 

 enacted, viz. in the year 1624, and of the economic theories 

 which then obtained. It was designed to incite individuals to 

 provide means whereby workless men might be put to profitable 

 labour. The restrictions of the various trade guilds, particularly 

 in the direction of what virtually amounted to limitation of 

 output, and of their inelasticity as regards extension of the scope 

 of the energies of their craftsmen, had been seen for a century or 

 more to be affecting detrimentally the conditions of the labour 

 market. At the time when the Statute of Monopolies was 

 drafted what more likely means for coping with the prevailing 

 distress could have been thought of than the bringing into this 

 country a knowledge of new manufacturing operations or 

 incidentally by the creation of manufactures by inventive 

 ingenuity ? 



The more the subject is examined the more certain it appears 

 that the restriction of patent protection to mere " manufactures " 

 was an historical accident. But the times have changed, economic 

 conditions and thought have advanced, and the judiciary has 

 deemed itself capable of extending the meaning of the word 

 "manufacture" but little beyond that which it originally bore, at 

 any rate not to the extent which modern requirements suggest. 

 Within the rigid boundaries to which the Courts have held 

 themselves to be confined, the judges have tried to deal with the 

 matter on an equitable basis and to differentiate between the 

 pioneer inventor and the follower, the discoverer of a master 

 idea and the mere improver. Where they have found that a new 

 discovery, purpose, or end has been brought to light and some 

 ingenious means have been patented whereby the new discovery 

 might profitably be employed, the judiciary has extended the 

 scope of the protection given by the patent beyond that invention 

 which the words of the patentee as they occur in the complete 

 description of the invention might at first sight appear to describe. 

 The judiciary has not been niggardly in its interpretation of the 

 pioneer's own specification. But what is now wanted is legisla- 



