Call for Papers - International Diversity in Patent Cultures - a historical perspective
A two day workshop at University of Leeds (15-16 May
2014) exploring diversity among patent systems.
International diversity among patent systems has been
familiar to historians since at least Edith Tilton Penrose's classic The
Economics of the International Patent System (1951). While some nations, e.g.
the USA, permitted great liberality in what could be patented and how patents
could be used, many European nations prohibited the patenting of medicines and
weaponry (among much else) and imposed strict conditions on patentees'
exercise of their rights. The variety of patent systems
across the globe was not dissolved by the 1883 Paris Convention for the
Protection of Industrial Property. Indeed as Rajesh Sagar and Tshimanga Kongolo
have shown, imperial regimes typically imposed their distinctive patent systems
on colonies; this in turn generated further diversity e.g. the hybrid and
variant forms adopted in parts of the British Empire. By contrast, other
nations resisted pressure to institute patent systems well into the twentieth
century, adopting other approaches to the management of invention.
This workshop explores the factors underlying such
diversity and how it was managed, challenged, and in some respects harmonized
by the mid 20th century.
A limited number of additional places are available at
this workshop.
If you wish to participate, please send a paper proposal
(300 words
maximum) to Graeme Gooday
g.j.n.gooday@leeds.ac.uk<mailto:g.j.n.gooday@leeds.ac.uk> by Tuesday 25th February.
Your proposal should address at least one of the
following themes:
i) What patterns of diversity and similarity were
apparent in national patent systems in terms of what could be patented, where,
by whom, on what terms, and for whose primary benefit? How important were
shared political cultures, industrial imperatives, or linguistic-cultural
terrain? In what ways and to what extent did the forces of imperialism in mould
patent laws? Why, for example, was Britain alone in not imposing the mother
country's patent laws on its colonies, with Canada adopting a patent system
that was a hybrid of American and British forms? How important were the two
world wars and associated peace treaties in realigning patent laws into more
convergent forms?
ii) How can we analyse the key differences between patent
regimes? For example, why did so many patent systems in European countries
(unlike the
USA) initially resist the patenting of weaponry, food,
drink, medicine, chemicals, plants, seeds and other biological components such
as genes? To what extent was it only in liberal political regimes that
patentability was constrained only by what was novel? What drove international
harmonization on patentability: was it a convergence of independent court
judgements in the states concerned or was it the economic pressure of global
capitalism to broaden the scope of patent-driven commodification?
iii) Why did some countries - both within Europe and
elsewhere - choose not to have patent systems until the early to mid-twentieth
century (e.g.
Greece), and some even later (e.g. China in 1964)? Was
this a matter of active government rejection of patenting in principle (while
typically not rejecting trademarks)? Or was it a sign that alternative
non-proprietary approaches to creativity were preferred by governments or
industry?