Lessons from the Past: The Venetian Republic’s Tailoring of Patent Protection to the Characteristics of the Invention

S. Fusco
{"title":"Lessons from the Past: The Venetian Republic’s Tailoring of Patent Protection to the Characteristics of the Invention","authors":"S. Fusco","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3331687","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, much discussion in patent law has revolved around granting tailored protection to provide better incentives to inventors in different industries and to increase patent quality. For example, the deliberations that led to the enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) focused specifically on the role of the patent system in different industries as well as on modifying remedies and patent terms to reflect the needs of distinct technology sectors. Whereas in the literature there seems to be substantial agreement on the fact that tailored protection would be beneficial for the effectiveness of the patent system, there is no consensus with respect to which entity should be vested with the authority to produce tailored patent policies, standards and rules based on the needs of the various industries. Currently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are the two principal candidates for this role. Some of this debate is connected to the broader issue in legal academia of granting general regulatory authority to administrative agencies with highly specialized knowledge. Contrary to other administrative agencies, such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Congress has never granted such authority to the USPTO; scholars have criticized this inconsistency. The strongest argument they have used to question the current status of the USPTO refers to the fact that much could be gained from the information that this agency has accumulated through years of experience working with inventors in different industries, particularly with respect to tailoring patent protection. Historically, the Venetian Republic provided tailored patent protection based on the characteristics of the invention. In that context, the entity entrusted with the power to tailor the protection granted in each case was the Senate, the issuing authority. Moreover, although the Venetian Republic enacted what is widely recognized as the first Patent Act in the world in 1474, the Venetian Senate continued its practice of granting tailored patents until the end of the Republic in 1797. In fact, as explained by Luigi Sordelli in 1974, following the enactment of the 1474 Act, inventors could obtain protection in Venice in two ways: through the newly created statutory system or through the much older customary system of senatorial grants. Conclusive evidence that Sordelli’s view was correct is provided in a separate paper that I co-authored with Ted Sichelman and Toni Veneri, in which we shed important new light on the true origin of patent law. In this article, I focus instead on tailoring patent protection. Specifically, I use original documents from the Venetian State Archives to present a detailed account of how the Venetian Republic used its customary patent system to tailor protection to the unique characteristics of an invention. Furthermore, I provide a full analysis of what can be learned from the Venetian experience to inform the modern debate on tailoring patent protection. Until now, only two other legal scholars have conducted extensive examinations of the original Venetian patents: Ted Sichelman and Sean O’Connor. The Venetian patent system appears to have been a very successful one; it operated for more than 300 years and during the 16th century helped Venice to transform itself from being a nation of sailors to being a nation of artisans and engineers, and ultimately the center of technological development in Europe. Thus, the Venetian customary patent system offers important lessons on how tailored patent protection and higher patent quality can be achieved. An accurate description of this system is crucial to further understanding the specific steps that we should take to reach these goals today.","PeriodicalId":314810,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Rules of the Game (Topic)","volume":"142 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Rules of the Game (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3331687","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent years, much discussion in patent law has revolved around granting tailored protection to provide better incentives to inventors in different industries and to increase patent quality. For example, the deliberations that led to the enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) focused specifically on the role of the patent system in different industries as well as on modifying remedies and patent terms to reflect the needs of distinct technology sectors. Whereas in the literature there seems to be substantial agreement on the fact that tailored protection would be beneficial for the effectiveness of the patent system, there is no consensus with respect to which entity should be vested with the authority to produce tailored patent policies, standards and rules based on the needs of the various industries. Currently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are the two principal candidates for this role. Some of this debate is connected to the broader issue in legal academia of granting general regulatory authority to administrative agencies with highly specialized knowledge. Contrary to other administrative agencies, such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Congress has never granted such authority to the USPTO; scholars have criticized this inconsistency. The strongest argument they have used to question the current status of the USPTO refers to the fact that much could be gained from the information that this agency has accumulated through years of experience working with inventors in different industries, particularly with respect to tailoring patent protection. Historically, the Venetian Republic provided tailored patent protection based on the characteristics of the invention. In that context, the entity entrusted with the power to tailor the protection granted in each case was the Senate, the issuing authority. Moreover, although the Venetian Republic enacted what is widely recognized as the first Patent Act in the world in 1474, the Venetian Senate continued its practice of granting tailored patents until the end of the Republic in 1797. In fact, as explained by Luigi Sordelli in 1974, following the enactment of the 1474 Act, inventors could obtain protection in Venice in two ways: through the newly created statutory system or through the much older customary system of senatorial grants. Conclusive evidence that Sordelli’s view was correct is provided in a separate paper that I co-authored with Ted Sichelman and Toni Veneri, in which we shed important new light on the true origin of patent law. In this article, I focus instead on tailoring patent protection. Specifically, I use original documents from the Venetian State Archives to present a detailed account of how the Venetian Republic used its customary patent system to tailor protection to the unique characteristics of an invention. Furthermore, I provide a full analysis of what can be learned from the Venetian experience to inform the modern debate on tailoring patent protection. Until now, only two other legal scholars have conducted extensive examinations of the original Venetian patents: Ted Sichelman and Sean O’Connor. The Venetian patent system appears to have been a very successful one; it operated for more than 300 years and during the 16th century helped Venice to transform itself from being a nation of sailors to being a nation of artisans and engineers, and ultimately the center of technological development in Europe. Thus, the Venetian customary patent system offers important lessons on how tailored patent protection and higher patent quality can be achieved. An accurate description of this system is crucial to further understanding the specific steps that we should take to reach these goals today.
过去的教训:威尼斯共和国根据发明的特点调整专利保护
近年来,专利法中的许多讨论都围绕着给予量身定制的保护,为不同行业的发明者提供更好的激励,并提高专利质量。例如,导致制定《莱希-史密斯美国发明法》(Leahy-Smith America invention Act, AIA)的审议特别侧重于专利制度在不同行业中的作用,以及修改补救措施和专利条款以反映不同技术部门的需求。虽然在文献中,对于量身定制的保护将有利于专利制度的有效性这一事实似乎有实质性的共识,但对于哪个实体应该被赋予根据不同行业的需求制定量身定制的专利政策、标准和规则的权力,却没有达成共识。目前,美国联邦巡回上诉法院和美国专利商标局(USPTO)是这一角色的两个主要候选人。其中一些辩论与法律学术界更广泛的问题有关,即向具有高度专业知识的行政机构授予一般监管权力。与其他行政机构,如美国环境保护局(EPA),证券交易委员会(SEC)或职业安全与健康管理局(OSHA)相反,国会从未授予USPTO这样的权力;学者们批评了这种不一致。他们用来质疑USPTO现状的最有力的论据是,该机构通过多年与不同行业的发明家合作积累的信息,特别是在定制专利保护方面,可以获得很多信息。从历史上看,威尼斯共和国根据发明的特点提供量身定制的专利保护。在这种情况下,有权调整在每种情况下给予的保护的实体是参议院,即发出保护的机构。此外,尽管威尼斯共和国于1474年颁布了被广泛认为是世界上第一部专利法,但威尼斯参议院直到1797年共和国结束时仍在继续其授予量身定制专利的做法。事实上,正如Luigi Sordelli在1974年所解释的那样,随着1474法案的颁布,发明家可以通过两种方式在威尼斯获得保护:通过新创建的法定体系或通过更古老的参议院授予的习惯体系。我与Ted Sichelman和Toni Veneri合著的另一篇论文提供了Sordelli观点正确的结论性证据,在这篇论文中,我们对专利法的真正起源提供了重要的新见解。在本文中,我将重点讨论定制专利保护。具体来说,我使用了威尼斯国家档案馆的原始文件,详细介绍了威尼斯共和国如何利用其习惯的专利制度来为发明的独特特征量身定制保护。此外,我提供了一个全面的分析,可以从威尼斯的经验中学到什么,为现代关于裁剪专利保护的辩论提供信息。到目前为止,只有另外两位法律学者对威尼斯的原始专利进行了广泛的研究:泰德·西切尔曼(Ted Sichelman)和肖恩·奥康纳(Sean O’connor)。威尼斯的专利制度似乎是非常成功的;它运行了300多年,并在16世纪帮助威尼斯从一个水手的国家转变为一个工匠和工程师的国家,并最终成为欧洲技术发展的中心。因此,威尼斯习惯专利制度为如何实现量身定制的专利保护和更高的专利质量提供了重要的经验教训。准确描述这一制度对于进一步了解我们今天为实现这些目标应采取的具体步骤至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信