The paper "The Concept of the Patent, Its History in Australia" is a good example of business coursework. If there is anything which the history of patents will show us, it is that the history of the patent system is an ever-evolving process. That what today is a system which grants a reward to an individual for an innovative invention, was once a system which merely awarded favors. Irrespective if we view the historical aspects of the system or if we view from a micro or a macro level, we realize that the only consistent element is that change, is eminent.
Some of these changes have been the primary forces which have driven growth. Whether one views the condition of the patents system, locally or globally, it is clear that there are common areas as well as differences on both levels; the common areas are usually associated with inherent problems with the administrative processes, and the shortcomings of the legislative scope, which fosters a considerable amount of legal discretion. In viewing the global landscape, it is common to find similarities within some of the administrative processes, albeit there may exist some convoluted and extended practices, which appear to retard the process.
The existing attitude which some exhibit towards the increase in the numbers of applications can represent a perplexing set of issues. The fact that there is a fee being charged for each application which is filed, means that the offices which are responsible for processing and examining these applications are being paid, this represents a growth in revenue, and on this premise, the increase in applications should represent a good thing.
If there was not so much societal concern about the increase in monopoly rights. The working questions being posed are on the order of, should every patent which is requested be granted? What are the real economic costs? Should certain types of a patent be awarded at all? Obviously, the atmosphere is suggestive of the idea that patents should be restricted. The Concept of the Patent When we view the concept of patent rights and the meaning of the invention, it is clear that what we accept today, was very different from what the concept meant during the early years of its inception.
As the administrative practices, political ideology, and legal doctrines have evolved, so has the concept. Today’ s view of what a patent is, versus what the term patents for invention, which was the terminology used to describe Elizabethan patents, only brings with it an implied correlation, between then and now. Patents of the Elizabethan era were a totally different concept, in both its composition and details, as well as in its general practice. None the less, an understanding of the now bygone conceptual scheme of the sixteenth and seventeen century offers a viable introduction in the understanding of their sustainability and contemporary development.
Patents of the Elizabethan era were issued as instruments of royal prerogatives. When one searches for a specific classification of a patent, it is clear that they were completely granted at the discretion of the king. They were termed litterae patents, which were different types of grants which the king would issue through a general official document, directed for public consumption. These instruments were issued by the king for one of two reasons; to exercise royal power, or to confer privileges.
The focus tended to obscure the most important element, which is that the term invention was not at the time espoused in its modern terminology and was instead applied randomly to various instances of new trade and even industries. Neither patents nor the practices which surrounded the manner in which they were issued, were general rights, nor were these processes established to be aligned with the intangible known as the invention. As has been explained, it was for the purpose of special privileges for the exclusivity of trade, which was always granted at the king’ s discretion.
Arnold,Bruce Owning Ideas: Patents and Colonial Origins.,Retrieved on line on September 15, 2009, from www.patentsandcolonialorigins.com
Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Ed.1999)
Blackstone, William Commentaries on the Law of England 346 (1765-9
Danny Ashbolt, ,Can you keep a secret?;Innovated case study; L&R Ashbolt, Retrieved on line on September 15, 2009, from www.innovatedgov.au/innovatedcase_studies/ashbolt.pdf
Glen Krummel,, case study;stubby glove,Retrieved on line on September 15,2005, from www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/patent/stubbyglove_casestudy.pdf
Gutierrez,H., Improving Global Patents: Think Locally, Act Globally, Corporate Vice President and Deputy General Counsel 2008
Heise on-line, IT Management white papers:European Patent office warns of global patent warming,Retrieved on line on September 15, 2009, from www.heise.de/english/newsletter/news
Klitze,Ramon, A Historical Background of the English Patent Law
Miller,A.R.,& Davis, M.H.,Intellectual property-Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright in a nutshell(1990)
McFarlane,Ross, Business Process found patentable by Federal Court of Australia
McGinley,C.,Patent Office Workload, Intellectual Asset Management, Office of the European Patent in Munich, April/May 2007
Prager, Frank,D.,The Growth and influence of intellectual property
Ricksetson, S., Intellectual Property Administration & Policy in Australia:An Examination of the Australian Situation, Past and Present, and Recommendations for future Change(Paper presented at the National Innovation Summit, Melbourne, 9-11 February 2000).
Brenner v.Manson (383 U.S. 519 )
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981)
Diamond v. Chakrabayty, 447 U.S. 303 
KSR International Co. v. Telflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 
Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co.  243 U.S. 502-511
Occupational and Medical Innovations Ltd v. Retractable Technologies Inc  FCA 1102
State Street Bank and Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group Inc. 149 F.3d 1368,1375[Fed. Cir. 1988], cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1093 
U.S. vs. Masonite Corp., 325U.S. 327,330-31
Welcome Real-Time SA v. Catuity Inc (2001 FCA 445)
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1994
The Berne Convention 1886
The Patent Cooperation Treaty 1970
The 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty
Patent Act 1952, Section 101, (35 U.S.C. 100 et seq.
Patent Act 1990