432 
Patents^ 
By the 6th section of 21 James 1. ch. 3. the enacting clause^ 
of that statute against monopolies generally? are declared not to 
extend to letters patent, and grants of privileges for 14 years or 
under, thereafter to be made, for the sole working or making of 
any manner of new manufactures within this realm, to the true 
and first inventor of such manufactures, which others at the time 
of making such letters patent shall not use, so as also, they be not 
contrary to law— -nor mischievous to the state by raising the 
prices of commodities at home— or hurt of trade— or generally 
inconvenient. 
The following comprize all the cases of consequence on patent 
rights, not including the questions on the copy-right of authors. 
The cases in Godbolt are too obsolete to be noticed, 
3 Inst. 184. 1 Hawk. 233, Birscot’s case. In which, additions 
to known manufactures are said not to be entitled to patent. But 
this case was overruled by Lord Mansfield in Morris v. Branson. 
5 Co. 94. a, Barwick’s case: a false suggestion will avoid a grant. 
Edgberry v. Stephens, Salk. 447. 1 Hawk. 233. Invention^ 
imported from abroad, never before used at home, entitled to 
patent. I shall observe upon this doctrine presently. This is the 
foundation for the New York patent to Livingston and Fulton. 
Rex V. Mussary, 12 Geo. 2. Buller, N. P. [75.] 
Morris v. Branson, 1776, Buller, N. P. [77.] Stocking frame. 
Liardet V. Johnson, 1778, Buller, N. P. [76.] Patent stucco: 
tisually, but falsely cited as a case on a patent for elastic trusses. 
Rex V. Arkwright, 1785, Buller, N. P. [77.] Cotton spin- 
ning. 
Rex V. Else, 1785, Buller, N. P. 76. 
Turner v- Winter, 1787, I Durnf. & East, 602. Patent mine- 
ral yellow. 
Boulton and Watt v. Bull, 1795, 2 H. Blacks. 463. 3 Vez. 
140. Court divided on the law. Steam engine. 
Hornblower v. Boulton and Watt, in error, 1799, 8 Durnf. and 
East, 95. Steam Engine. 
Harmer V. Plane, 1807, 1 4 Vez. 130, Woollen cloth. 
Much of the discussion in the cases of Boulton and Watt con^ 
sists of argument on the grammatical meaning of the words manu“ 
facture, machine, method, principle. 
The points substantially determined by these cases, may be 
reduced to the following heads. 
1st. No patent is valid, in England, for any thing contrary to 
laW“^for any thing mischievous to the state by raising the price 
