University of Virginia Library

Search this document 


  

collapse section 
  
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
  
  
collapse section 
  
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
  
  
collapse section 
  
collapse section 
  
  
  
collapse section 
  
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
  
collapse section 
  
  
  
  
collapse section 
  
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
  
  
  
collapse section 
  
collapse section 
  
  
LAW REPORT. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Dec. 14. THE UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE v BLAKE AND OTHERS.
  
  
  
  
  

  
collapse section 
  
  
  
  
collapse section 
  
  
  
  

LAW REPORT.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Dec. 14.
THE UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE v
BLAKE[26] AND OTHERS.

The Solicitor General moved, on the part of the Chancellor, Masters, and Fellows of the two Universities, for an injunction to restrain the defendants from continuing the sale of certain works, the exclusive copyright of which is vested in those public bodies by letters-patent. The Books in question were the Holy Scriptures, and the Book of Common Prayer. An edition of the former had recently been published under the title of Gurney's Bible, with a Commentary and Annotations. These were, however, nothing more than a pretext, and were used only to colour an invasion of literary property. A separate edition, of quarto size,[27] accompanied by reflexions, had also been offered to the world by the same booksellers, together with two copies [i.e., editions] of the Prayer Book. One of these professed to be an abridgement, but in point of fact contained the whole of that portion of the service which is usually read. The other, gave the whole text, subjoining a variety of annotations. As the originals could not legally be published, without a license from one of the Universities, he apprehended that the addition of notes, or omission of particular parts, must be considered as a mere attempt at disguise, and would not be allowed by a court of equity to defeat a valuable privilege.

The Vice-Chancellor granted the injunction ....

Notice that the injunction appears to be concerned only with Bibles and Prayer Books which have appended "Commentary and Annotations . . . only


387

Page 387
to colour an invasion of literary property" or which "professed to be an abridgement". Since annotated and abridged Bibles and Prayer Books had for almost a century been published with impunity by booksellers who had no share in the patent, this implies a radical reinterpretation of the implications of the patent.

Of course, this injunction spread alarm, "terror and dismay" among the booksellers who had for years been selling annotated and illustrated Bibles printed without license from the patent-holders, and another clipping in the Oxford University Press archives from an unidentified periodical dated in MS Saturday "Jany 23 1819" reports a