MONOPOLY, from the Greek mono 'lona (novonoxla), which occurs in Aris totle's Politick (i. 11), where it is used simply in the sense of a man buying up the whole of a commodity so as to be the sole holder of it, and to have the power of selling it at his own price. When he word monopolium was used by Ti.
berius in addressing the Roman senate (Suet. Tib., c. 71), he thought an apology necessary for introducing a new word. The word however soon came into com mon use. The term monopoly, which literally signifies single or sole selling, is used in a constitution of Zeno (Cod., iv. 59) in the sense in which it is used by Aristotle, and in the sense of what our law understands by forestalling, engross ing, regrating ; to which we may add combining to keep up prices. [FORE EtTALLIN6.1 Zeno declares that no per son shall exercise a monopoly of clothing, fish, or any other thing adapted for food or use. He gives no definition of mono poly. The term however must be ex plained from the context, from which it appears to signify any means by which a person gets or attempts to get the whole of any commodity into his possession for the purpose of enhancing the price. In the same Constitution he forbids all com bination among dealers to raise the prices of any commodity. Zeno's punishment for monopoly was confiscation of the goods of the offender and perpetual exile.
A monopoly, according to the English law, is defined by Coke (3 Inst. 181, c. 85, Against Monopolists,' &c.) to be "an institution or allowance by the king, by his grant, commission, or otherwise, to any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, of or for the sole buying, sell ing, making, working or using of any thing, whereby any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, are sought to be restrained of any freedom or li berty that they had before, or hindered in their lawful trade." In Le Case de Monopolies (11 Co., 86, b) it is said that every monopoly has three inseparable incidents—the raising of the price, the deterioration of the commodity, and the impoverishment of artificers and others. It appears that these inseparable incidents were considered as tests by which a grant savouring of monopoly might be tried.
Every royal grant or letters patent tending to a monopoly as thus defined and explained was void. The crown however
eould by letters patent grant and create exclusive privileges of buying and selling w hen such grant was of general use, or when the grant was to an individual who had introduced into the country something new and useful. This prerogative of the crown was often abused, and by none more than by Elizabeth, who granted many patents of monopolies for the pur• pose of raising money. As an instance of this, Elizabeth had fronted to a certain person the sole making, importing, and selling of playing cards, which grant was declared void by the judges. (Le Case de Monopolies.) It seems then that the word monopoly was never used in English law, except when there was a royal grant authorising some one cc more persons only to deal in or sell a certain commodity or article.
By the act of 21 Jac. I., c. 3, all mo nopolies and all commissions, grants, licences, charters, and letters patent tr. any person or body politic or corporate, of or for the sole buying, selling, making, working, or using of anything, or of any other monopolies, &e., are declared con trary to the laws of the realm and utterly void and of none effect.
By the sixth section of the same statute the above provisions do not extend to letters patent and grants of privilege thereafter to be granted for fourteen years or under, of the sole working or making of any new manufacture to the true and first inventor thereof, which others at the time of making such letters patent and grants shall not use, so as also such let ters patent be not contrary to the law, or mischievous to the state, or generally in convenient. This section is the founda tion of the present law as to patents for inventions. [PATENTS.] Copyright and patents are now ge nerally placed among monopolies by legal writers, but not correctly. The original legal sense of the term monopoly has been already explained ; and the power of the crown to grant patents is now limited and defined, as well as the several formalities to be observed in obtaining them. Any patent not obtained in due form is void ; and the term monopoly, as above ex plained, has legally ceased to exist.