258 
. Patent-Right and Patent-Law . [May, 
scope and the field for the exertions and the enterprise of 
other men ; on the contrary, he has in many cases opened 
out new tracks. In what legitimate sense his claims can be 
called a privilege and a monopoly I do not see. According 
to Coke’s definition a monopoly is a grant or decree of the 
ruling power, by which some person, company, or corpora- 
tion is invested with the exclusive right to manufacture or 
sell certain goods, or to perform other actions which were 
previously open to the public in general. 
To take an instance : the East India Company was 
formerly endowed with the exclusive privilege to trade to 
India, China, and in general to countries situate eastwards 
of the Cape of Good Hope. This was evidently a monopoly, 
because previous to their charter any British merchant might, 
if so disposed, trade to those countries, and was afterwards 
prevented from so doing. On the other hand, suppose John 
Tomkins invents a dichroic dye, which when applied to silks 
gives them a beautiful rose colour when seen in one direction, 
and an intense green when viewed in another. He applies 
for and obtains a patent. But the exclusive right which he 
thus holds deprives the public of nothing, since prior to the 
invention of John Tomkins they could not make this dye. 
Even Mr. Macfie, who can scarcely be accused of too 
strong a bias in favour of the rights of inventors, says, in 
his evidence before the Commons’ Committee in 1871, very 
much the same thing : — “ They are not deprived of anything 
that they had before. Patents do not deprive you of any 
rights. The theory is that a Patent creates something that 
did not exist before. With regard to the old monopoly it 
was a grant of something in existence, such as the sale of 
sugar or salt ; in faCt there was hardly anything that was 
not a subjeCf of monopoly in the old times, and there the 
public were deprived of something.” It is surely therefore 
to be regretted that such terms as “ protection ” should still 
be retained, and that reference is still made to the “ Statute 
of Monopolies.” These very words at once throw free-trade 
champions into a state bordering on delirium tremens , and 
make them fancy that they have, as such, a good locus standi 
in the discussion of the question. 
But it is asked by the opponents of copy-right and patent- 
right, why, if there can be property in ideas, are not the 
author and the inventor secured in the enjoyment of their 
rights for ever, instead of for a limited term ? This is a very 
difficult question to deal with. In the German empire copy- 
right is, I believe, perpetual. It is to be considered that the 
value of a book or an invention is greatest immediately after 
