You’re reading Age of Invention, my newsletter on the causes of the British Industrial Revolution and the history of innovation. This edition went out to over 16,300 subscribers. To support my work, you can upgrade your subscription here: As a historian, I’m often surprised by the ways people use my work. I rarely draw direct lessons from history for the present, and when I do, it’s rare for me to do so explicitly. There are often parallels, but I prefer not to spell them out — especially as readers tend to draw their own lessons anyway, often in fascinating ways that had never even occurred to me. History has a kind of natural and unpredictable appeal, even without an editorialising veneer. It even holds a kind of authority, especially when it shows a precedent for something that might otherwise seem controversial. If something was done before, we instinctively feel it may be done again. If something was
Very interesting. I had no idea about this group. I take it Edward Coke was a member? I think it's fair to point out that the "anti-monopoly" grouping were not against inventive patents per se. The fourteen year monopoly was based on 2 x the time it took for the guilds to train an apprentice. What is interesting, however, is that the English Parliament did not set up a positive right to novel patents meaning the question of how broad patent protection should be was left unresolved for centuries in England.
As I read this, I wondered if there is any connection between the Society and the drafters of the US Constitution. Your last paragraph points to the importance of "freedom of speech" which is really the core belief of the Constitution and has always been under threat.
While I am no expert, this seems somewhat similar to the claims Mary Beard makes about the Romans in SPQR. Namely, that legal innovations to mos maiorum were always disguised as a return to some ancient standard which had lapsed. I believe she (and Mike Duncan) specifically cite that Gracchi land reform as one such example of radical innovation labelled as a return to the true way of the ancestors.
I imagine it is often politically convenient to charge that the defenders of the status quo are in fact revolutionaries, who destroyed a (possibly fantastical) more just past. This though, is far purer speculation.
I think John Stow may have been a member. Some hints in the Survey.
Very interesting. I had no idea about this group. I take it Edward Coke was a member? I think it's fair to point out that the "anti-monopoly" grouping were not against inventive patents per se. The fourteen year monopoly was based on 2 x the time it took for the guilds to train an apprentice. What is interesting, however, is that the English Parliament did not set up a positive right to novel patents meaning the question of how broad patent protection should be was left unresolved for centuries in England.
As I read this, I wondered if there is any connection between the Society and the drafters of the US Constitution. Your last paragraph points to the importance of "freedom of speech" which is really the core belief of the Constitution and has always been under threat.
While I am no expert, this seems somewhat similar to the claims Mary Beard makes about the Romans in SPQR. Namely, that legal innovations to mos maiorum were always disguised as a return to some ancient standard which had lapsed. I believe she (and Mike Duncan) specifically cite that Gracchi land reform as one such example of radical innovation labelled as a return to the true way of the ancestors.
I imagine it is often politically convenient to charge that the defenders of the status quo are in fact revolutionaries, who destroyed a (possibly fantastical) more just past. This though, is far purer speculation.