Bangkok Post, Thailand, To The Point Column.

Byline: Baker & McKenzie

Dec. 2--Log on to the Internet, do a search for "history of patents", and 20,164 different entries come up on the screen. This is just one small indication of the importance of patents and the interest they generate.

Misinformation and misconceptions about patents abound. In this article we will explain where they came from and what they are. Next week we will explain why they are of particular importance for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. We will try to shed some light on what can be a bear pit of conflicting opinions, especially when it comes to patents for pharmaceuticals.

Patents have a long and controversial history. The first were probably granted in Italy in the 1200s, when Venice awarded patents to inventors of silk-making devices. In England, the first patent for invention was given in 1449 to Flemish-born John of Utynam, for a method of making stained glass, which was used in windows at Eton College.

Things got out of hand. As a money-raising exercise, Tudor and Stuart monarchs awarded patents for things that were not new. Elizabeth I sought to award a patent for bone-handled knives, but it was found to be unsustainable because there was nothing new about a bone-handled knife.

Abuses resulted in the Statute of Monopolies of 1624, which laid out the basis for modern patent law. In future, for something to have the capability of being patented, it had to involve novelty and not be contrary to public interest.

However, the basis had been laid for widespread misconceptions. Forever after, patents were to be linked in people's minds with that dirty word "monopoly", and its connotations of unfair commercial advantage, exploitation and profiteering. If patents had been described as "exclusive inventor's rights" rather than "monopolies", they would have avoided much unjustified discredit.