The inventor does not necessarily have to be the actual inventor.

In 1691, a seemingly uncomplicated set of facts was laid before the judges in England.

This technology was not new.

At least, it was not new outside the United Kingdom.

It had long been used by people on the other side of the English Channel, and the applicant was not the very first person to create it.

If we brought today's concept of patents back to 1691, the case would seem to end right here.

Others had already mastered it long ago, and you only learned about it later.

How could you still claim to be the "inventor"?

But the judge asked another question:

Could England do it?

The answer was: No.

Thus, the very same technology suddenly had two completely different identities.

Overseas, it was old.

In England, it could still be new.

The Edgeberry v Stephens rule preserved by later English courts was stated very straightforwardly: even if a technology had previously been used "beyond sea" — overseas — it could still be patented as long as it was new in England. The reason lay in a few words of the Statute of Monopolies 1624: new manufactures within this realm — new manufactures within this kingdom. When the later Privy Council of the United Kingdom reviewed this period of history, it reaffirmed that "invention by importation" had long been part of English law.1

The precedent even went on to state that it was "the same thing" in this context whether a person developed the technology on their own or learned it from a foreign country while travelling.1

The inventor did not have to be the original inventor.

The term "inventor" here once referred not only to the person who first created the technology worldwide, but also to the person who first introduced an existing foreign technology into the home country.

He did not invent that technology — at least, not in the modern sense of "the first person in the world to create it".

He accomplished another thing:

Bringing it to England for the first time.

From "retaining people" to "introducing technology"

1331 John Kempe The royal family granted protection to foreign weavers to settle in England, bringing their proficient skills into the country.

1614 Clothworkers of Ipswich The court distinguished ordinary monopolies from temporary exclusivity after "bringing new inventions and new trades into the kingdom".

1624 Statute of Monopolies It invalidated a large number of monopolies, while reserving an exception of up to 14 years for "new manufactures within this realm".

1691 Edgeberry v Stephens It clarified that technology already existing abroad but not yet available in England could still be regarded as "new"; technology learned through travel could also fall under the definition of invention.

A technology often travels with its bearer in the early days

In 1331, King Edward III of England extended protection to John Kempe, a weaver from Flanders.

At that time, there was certainly no English patent system in the modern sense. The royal family was not confirming any modern property rights that Kempe held over a specific invention.

What England was doing was another matter: finding ways to bring in foreign artisans who had more mature manufacturing skills.

Ronan Deazley's research on the institutional background of the Statute of Monopolies 1624 shows that England used royal prerogative to encourage foreign artisans to settle very early on. Weavers came from Flanders, clockmakers came from Delft; industries including mining, metalworking, coinage, artillery and gunpowder manufacturing also benefited from the import of foreign skills.2

Certainly, not all of these can be called "patents". They first belong to another chapter of history: how a country acquires skills and manufacturing capabilities that it did not originally possess.

A large number of technologies in that era could hardly exist independently of the people who mastered them.

How to weave. How to dye. How to adjust the process when materials change. What sound a machine makes indicates that something has gone wrong.

These things were largely stored in the hands, eyes and experience of an artisan.

In an era when knowledge was primarily attached to people, introducing technology first meant introducing the people who mastered the technology. This is an explanatory summary of the early technology transfer mechanism, and does not mean that the 1331 protection document was a modern patent.

In the previous article, Venice faced the same problem: why would people who mastered new technologies choose to come to my city?

In England, the question gradually moved a step forward:

If someone truly brings in a trade that the local population does not know how to do, should society grant him a period of time so that others cannot immediately copy his business?

Why can't a tailor make a living with his own craft?

The 1614 case of Clothworkers of Ipswich seemingly had nothing to do with "great inventions".

An industry organization in Ipswich stipulated that anyone who wanted to engage in tailoring and related professions must complete seven years of apprenticeship and obtain their approval.

Later, a person who did not obtain the qualification as required continued to run this business. The industry organization took him to court and demanded that he pay a fine.

After the case was brought to the Court of King's Bench of England, the issue became very specific:

Does an industry organization have the right to decide who can make a living from this craft?

The court said no.

The case record shows that the court held that guilds could formulate industry management rules, but they could not create monopolies by doing so and deprive subjects of their right to engage in free trade; the judgment eventually supported the defendant.3

If the judgment had stopped here, it would only have been one case in the history of England's fight against guild monopolies.

But the judge immediately put forward an exception.

Suppose what a person brings in is not a business that everyone already knows how to do, but a "new invention and a new trade". He takes risks and consumes his own property and capital for this; at the beginning, the local people do not know how to do it, and have no corresponding knowledge and skills.

In this case, the court said, the king could grant this person exclusive right to run this trade temporarily as compensation for his costs and efforts. But after the patent expires, the trade has become widespread and others have learned the skills, there is no reason to continue to prohibit them from engaging in it.3

The exclusive right is not the end point, but a temporary bridge. One end of the bridge is where society "does not yet know how to do it"; the other end is where this skill gradually becomes local production capacity. This is a condensed summary of the case mechanism from the publication, not the original terminology of 17th-century judges.

The actual operation of the system was certainly not so orderly. Privileges would be abused, political connections would affect grants, and vested interests would also take advantage of monopolies.

But the 1614 precedent at least clearly distinguished two things:

Enclosing things that everyone already knew how to do and preventing others from doing them;

and

Bringing in things that no one had known how to do before.

Not all monopolies are the same.

Parliament wanted to cut down monopolies, but left a loophole

In 1624, the Parliament of England passed the Statute of Monopolies.

This name itself is very notable.

It was not called the "Invention Protection Act", nor the "Innovation Promotion Act".

It was intended to address a political and economic problem that had accumulated for many years: the royal family had granted too many monopolies.

During the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I, royal prerogative was used not only to promote industries, but also to increase revenue and reward favourites. The resulting abuses and backlash eventually pushed Parliament to continuously restrict royal monopolies. Deazley pointed out that the 1624 Act did not immediately end the monopoly problem, nor should it be simply described as the starting point of the modern patent system; it was more like writing the restrictions that had gradually taken shape in common law courts into statutory law.2

The patent exception left by the Statute of Monopolies 1624

Principle A large number of monopolies were declared unlawful

Subject of the exception New manufactures within this realm

Right holder true and first inventor

Term A maximum of 14 years for future grants

Restrictions Shall not raise domestic commodity prices or harm trade

Core question What kind of exclusivity is worthy of temporary tolerance by society?

The original parchment text of the Statute of Monopolies does contain the phrases "new manufacture within this Realme" and "true and first inventer", and requires that such privileges must not violate the law, raise domestic commodity prices, harm trade, or cause general public inconvenience.4

Thus, a more interesting question than "when did the English patent law start" arises:

Why did a law against monopolies specifically leave one type of monopoly intact?

What England tried to distinguish was two types of exclusivity.

The first type of exclusivity simply takes away the existing freedom of society. Everyone could originally do it, but now only you are allowed to do it.

The second type of exclusivity claims that it brings a new manufacture that did not exist before to this society.

The former creates privileges in the existing market.

The latter, at least in theory, may add a capability that society did not have before.

In the process of fighting against monopolies, England tried to find a type of monopoly that could be tolerated.

From a very early stage, patents have always been accompanied by a question:

Do the benefits that this exclusivity brings to society offset the cost of exclusivity?

Back to 1691 again

Now let's go back to the beginning of the article.

The 1624 Act wrote two phrases: true and first inventor.

When we see this today, we can easily automatically interpret it as: the person who truly and originally created this technology in the world.

But there are other words in the preceding part of the law:

within this Realm.

Within this kingdom.

Decades later, Edgeberry v Stephens fully explained the geographical dimension here. When the Privy Council of the United Kingdom later cited this case, it summarized that if an invention was "new in England", even if the technology had been practiced overseas before, it still fell within the provisions of the Act; it was "the same thing" whether it was learned through travel or obtained through research.1

The word "first" here does not necessarily mean the first in the world.

It can mean the first in England.

The term "inventor" here is also not exactly equivalent to the original creator of knowledge as we know it today.

It may also include: the person who introduced this manufacturing capability to England for the first time.

Therefore, the phrase "the inventor does not have to be the inventor" in the title does not mean that the law allows an irrelevant person to impersonate the inventor.

What has really changed is: The identity of "inventor" once had a different boundary from what it has today.

Why does an old machine become "new" after crossing the English Channel?

Suppose there is a machine.

It has been used in the Netherlands for ten years.

The machine is loaded onto a ship, crosses the English Channel, and arrives in England.

Its structure has not changed. Its principle has not changed. Its method of use has not changed.

From the perspective of the technology itself, it certainly has not suddenly become ten years younger.

So is it old or new?

If judged by the knowledge that the world already possesses: it is old.

If judged by the production capacity that England had in the 17th century: it could still be new.

It is not the machine that has changed. What has changed is the perspective that the law chooses to adopt to evaluate it.

The so-called "novelty" also depends on the perspective from which it is judged.

The modern mainstream patent system usually assesses novelty based on a broader scope of prior art. In the early days, England adopted the "local novelty" logic for a long time: if a technology did not exist locally, even if it had already been disclosed abroad, it would not necessarily bar a local patent. When reviewing this institutional history in 2014, the Privy Council of the United Kingdom clearly pointed out that "invention by importation" had long been a feature of English law, and it did not withdraw from the legal system until the Patents Act 1977 came into force.1

Different standards will grant rights to different people.

First emergence in the world → Find the original creator / First acquisition by the home country → The introducer can also be an inventor

What the law chooses is not just who to grant the rights to.

It is also choosing: from which perspective to judge "novelty".

Putting this 300-year history together, the clues become clear.

In 1331, England first tried to get foreign artisans with skills to settle down.

In 1614, the court stated that if a person brings a new invention and a new trade into the kingdom, and the local society does not know how to operate it, he can be granted temporary exclusive rights.

In 1624, while invalidating a large number of monopolies, Parliament reserved an exception of up to 14 years for "new manufactures within England".

In 1691, the judicial precedent made this logic even clearer: the fact that a technology already exists abroad does not mean that it is already available in England.

Certainly, this history cannot be simplistically reduced to the claim that "imported patents created the Industrial Revolution in England". There is no such evidence.

England's early patent system was far from a precisely designed machine for technology import. Applying for patents had costs, privileges could be abused, and political connections would affect the operation of the system; after a technology entered England, it would not automatically be mastered by society just with a patent certificate.

People still need to build factories, hire workers, take on apprentices, imitate others, experience failures, and leave one workshop to bring their experience to the next.

Patents are only one tool in this long chain.

But the 1691 rule still leaves a fact that is very unfamiliar to us today.

That technology did not change at all just because it arrived in England.

The machine was still the same machine. The method was still the same method.

What changed was the position from which the law observed it.

To the rest of the world, it might have long been old.

To England, it could still be new.

What early patents protected was sometimes not the first emergence of knowledge, but the first arrival of knowledge.

Historical materials and further reading

The Edgeberry v Stephens rule of 1691 and "invention by importation":

Paragraphs 10-11 and subsequent discussions of the 2014 judgment of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom in Pfizer Limited v Medimpex Jamaica Limited, which cites the 1614 Clothworkers of Ipswich case and the 1691 Edgeberry v Stephens case, and clearly states that English law has long adopted the tradition of local novelty and imported inventions. View the judgment.

John Kempe in 1331 and the institutional background in 1624:

Ronan Deazley, "Comment