Pamphlet

Pamphlet (pronounced pam-flit)

(1) A complete publication, of undefined length with fewer pages than the shortest books (typically, 10-40 pages) and usually stitched or stapled with a paper or soft-cardboard cover (although the very early pamphlets tended to be unbound).

(2) A short treatise or essay, generally a controversial tract on some subject of contemporary interest, historically most associated with a political position.

(3) A kind of precursor newspaper containing literary compositions, advertisements and news (archaic).

(4) A brief handwritten work (obsolete) except in some university clubs and societies.

(5) To print (always rare and now obsolete) or distribute pamphlets (obsolete).

1375–1425: From the late Middle English pamphlet & pamphilet, from the earlier pamflet (brief written text; poem, tract, small book), from the Middle French pamphilet (influenced by the Anglo-Latin pamfletus, panfletus & paunflettus (short written text), a syncopated variant of Pamphiletus, diminutive of the twelfth century Medieval Latin Pamphilus, the short form of Pamphilus, seu de Amore (about love), a brief Latin erotic poem (Pamphilus the protagonist) that was popular and widely copied in the Middle Ages (it inspired also a number of comedies for the stage).  The name came from the Ancient Greek Πάμφιλος (Pámphilos), literally “beloved by all”), the construct being pan- (all) + philos (loving, dear).  Because the poems and dramatic works were issued in the short, easily carried format ideally suited to political or other statements, the widely circulated pamphlets lent their name to the whole phenomenon which, as a form of distribution can be imagined as the tweets or TikTok clips of their time.

The meaning once so associated with the word (brief work dealing with questions of current interest; short treatise or essay, generally controversial, on some topical subject) dates from the late sixteenth century, a time when for social and technological reasons, such publications became suddenly popular.  The noun pamphleteer (a writer of pamphlets) emerged in the 1640s and was applied even to activists who merely supported what was advocated, regardless of their involvement in distribution.  From that noun, by the 1690s, came the verb, used in the sense of “to write and issue pamphlets”.  The spellings pamphlette & pamphleter are functionally extinct.  The word pamphlet was adopted unchanged in French, German and Italian while in Spanish the form was Spanish: panfleto and in Portuguese panfleto.  Pamphlet, pamphleteering & pamphleteer are nouns & verbs, pamphletry & pamphleting are nouns, verb & adjective, pamphletful & pamphletism are nouns, pamphleteered & pamphletize, pamphletizes & pamphletizing are verbs, pamphletary & pamphletic are adjectives and pamphletwise is an adverb; the noun plural is pamphlets (pamphleteers has become rare since the predominant meaning shift from polemics to information although some political scientists are fond).

Areopagitica; A speech of Mr. John Milton for the Liberty of Unlicenc'd Printing, to the Parlament of England (1644).  A slim work of 30 pages, long titles were then a thing for pamphlets.  Areopagitica (the title references both the democratic traditions of Ancient Greece and the words of Saint Paul in the New Testaments Book of Acts (17:18-34)) was written in prose and was one of the more influential pamphlets extolling the virtues of the principle of freedom of speech and expression.

The pamphlet was the platform of choice for many writers noted for the vigor of their religious or political views including Sir Thomas More (1478–1535), William Tyndale (circa 1494–1536), Gerrard Winstanley (circa 1609–1676), John Milton (1608–1674), Daniel Defoe (circa 1660–1731), Thomas Dekker (circa 1572–1632), Jonathan Swift (1667–1745), Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792–1822), and the many nineteenth century Chartists.  In this form, it was in England the pamphlet first flourished because unlike in much of Europe, censorship by the state was less restrictive and the power of the churches diminished.  Still, authors did need to be careful and after making the mistake of travelling to Europe where priests still held sway, Tyndale was convicted of heresy and strangled while tied to the stake, actually a merciful act because his body was burned only after death.  In France, the turbulent years of revolutions, empire and wars (1789-1848) were also the “pamphlet decades”, the streets a “battleground of ideas” as well as barricades and bayonets.

The Federalist Papers (Signet Classics edition, 2003) with an introduction, textual notes and a select bibliography by US political scientist Charles R. Kesler (b 1956); since 1788, the book has never been out-of-print.  As well as the obvious importance as a historic document, the contents are of interest if contrasted in content and breadth of ambition with current political discourse.

Among the most famous pamphlets are a few dozen which are remembered not in their original format but as the compilation into which they were assembled for publication the book The Federalist Papers (1788).  The Federalist Papers were literally that, 85 tracts written by Alexander Hamilton (circa 1756-1804), James Madison (1751-1836) and John Jay (1745-1829) and simultaneously in 1787-1788 published in New York newspapers and issued as pamphlets under the pseudonym “Publius”.  The purpose was to encourage ratification of the new US Constitution which had emerged from the Federal Convention in September 1787 and although knowledge of the identity of the authors was widespread, the authors chose “Publius” in a nod to Publius Valerius Publicola, one of the founders of the ancient Roman Republic.  What the pamphleteers wanted was “endorsement by association”; because Publicola translated as “friend of the people” the notion was to link their arguments with republican virtue and the protection of the people from monarchical despotism.

An edition of Some reflections on a pamphlet lately publish'd, entituled, An argument shewing that a standing army is inconsistent with a free government (1697) by Daniel Defoe.

Many of Defoe's pamphlets were not at the time attributed to him although than didn't save him from spending three days in the pillory after political power in the country suddenly shifted.  Nor were most of his novels originally published under his name.  In early eighteenth century England, anonymity was common for those writing novels because prose fiction had neither become “respectable” or solidified as a clearly labeled genre, the objection being the stuff simply wasn’t “true”.  That’s why works like Robinson Crusoe (1719) were marketed as “histories” or “lives”, anonymity helping to sustain the illusion the text was genuine testimony rather than invention.

Meaning shifts in English are not uncommon but the semantic shift of “pamphlet” was an example of a process in which there was first a broadening of use followed by something of a drift rather than a simple replacement. In terms of content, the original sense (which flourished between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries) had nothing to do with the source of the name which came from a Latin love poem which remained popular in the late medieval & early modern period.  Although there were a handful of examples of Pamphilus, seu de Amore which had been “embellished and extended” by opportunist authors, almost all versions were distributed as folios of a few pages and because this length was ideal for presenting political or theological polemics to a public unlikely to read (and, importantly, pay for) full-length books on the topics, these came to be known as “pamphlets” and those writing the overwhelmingly religious and political tracts were thus pamphleteers.  Until well into the eighteenth century, the word “pamphlet” was used for no other purpose than this canonical historical sense but in the 1800s a noticeable broadening happened in the UK which historians link with (1) the economies of scale offered by improvement in industrial printing, (2) rising literacy levels (3) a heightened interest in political matters as a consequence of the franchise being extended by the Reform Acts (1832, 1867 & 1884), (4) a splintering of various religious denominations and (5) the reduction in the cost of distribution (the extension of road and rail systems).

Pamphlet dealing with STIs (sexually transmitted infections) which used to be called STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) or VD (venereal disease).  Note the reassuring pastel hues.

While the interaction of all these forces meant there were more political and religious tracts (ironically, at a time when matters concerning the latter were becoming less controversial), the short, digestible form of the cheaply-produced pamphlet came to have great appeal in commerce so the term came to be used of just about any small, free booklet.  In an indication that while the means of distribution have changed, the strategy has not, the folk paid a tiny sum to stand on the platforms of railway stations and hand out pamphlets to commuters were fulfilling the same task as the algorithms used to deliver advertising to inboxes and web-pages.  Really, only the targeting has much improved but linguistically, this was the crucial shift; from content-focused to format-defined.  Over time, the proliferation of product announcements, catalogues, and advertising subsumed the original meaning but despite that, many etymologists seem to suggest the association of “pamphlets” with “advertising” didn’t become prevalent until the early twentieth century.

What modern targeted-marketing made an effected tool was the “virtual pamphlet” delivered by companies to digital inboxes of all sorts.  What lands in the inbox of one user will have content optimized for what that user’s history suggests will most likely provoke engagement (and hopefully sell stuff) while the user sitting in the adjacent cubicle might receive something with different content.  In the pre-modern days of printed pamphlets, it was a one-size-fits-all approach although even then a primitive form of targeting was possible; the pamphlets a manufacturer might place in a shop selling women’s shoes would likely be different from the stack in the men’s store.  However, as technology improved and costs further fell (two symbiotic forces) the forms of the printed ephemera of commerce proliferated and the documents became variously smaller, larger, thicker, slimmer, glossier and more colourful which demanded a new descriptive language, thus the emergence or re-purposing of “posters”, “catalogues”, “flyers”, “handbills”, “booklets”, “brochures”, “bulletins”, “folders”, “handouts”, “handbills” and “leaflets”.  With this new generation of forms, the idea of the “tract” which was once synonymous with “pamphlet” became separated and restricted to those documents which were still polemics on religion, politics, policy or some other topical matter.  Pamphlet thus didn’t until later become associated with commercial advertising with “brochure” or “catalogue” used for the more polished publications with the highest production values (indeed, auction houses handling high-priced collectables routinely charge for their glossy catalogues) while “leaflet”, “handbill”, “flyer” and such was used of simpler, often single-sheet and sometimes monochrome.  All this meant by the early twentieth century pamphlet had lost the “exclusivity of seriousness”, something exemplified by a heritage running from Jonathan Swift to The Federalist Papers.

Ocala Plastic Surgery and the Wuxi Sweet Fastener Company both sell solutions to problems but just as their products differ, so do the dynamics of their pamphlets.  Whether pamphlet, catalogue, poster or whatever, content can to some extent dictate form and method.  Ocala Plastic Surgery distributes brochures which not only are information-dense about the range of services offered but also includes visual content designed to entice; even the color choices are part of the messaging.  By contract, the Wuxi Sweet Fastener Company is really providing a list of products and specifications with the photography not at all artistic but most informative.  Not being in markets like Victoria's Secrets or Ocala Plastic Surgery, the Wuxi Sweet Fastener Company uses mostly functional black text on a white background with the odd splash of color there just to draw the eye to a corporate logo or heading.

So the word “pamphlet” became “neutral” because it came to describe a printed format with no implication of content, modern pamphlets typically either instructional, containing information or advertising.  That doesn’t mean there are no longer printed documents described as “political pamphlets” but those which still appear in letter-boxes around election time are better thought of as flyers, usually with a photograph of a smiling candidate and the odd TWS (three word slogan).  The content of pamphlets of the type widely circulated centuries ago has now been relegated to essays published in specialized periodicals and for these “long-form” pieces, readers of course have to pay for the privilege.  In that sense, the “pamphlet” is a historic relic sometimes seen in literary use although, curiously, in political science, politicians with a habit of writing pieces beyond a TWS are still sometimes dubbed “pamphleteers”.  One crew which still occasionally hands outs longer tracts in the style of the old religious pamphlets is the Jehovah's Witnesses but they’re something of a rarity, even a dedicated lot like the Falun Gong prone to modernist brevity.  That leaves some other terms to be described:

Tract: A doctrinal or moral argument in small format, a tract now is understood as a (relatively) short written work advancing a specific doctrine or moral argument.  Whether this is in a simple, accessible form or a dense piece littered with jargon likely to be understood only by other specialists in the field is determined not only by the subject but also the place of publication.  A tract discussing troubles in the Middle East will be different in form depending on whether it appears in a tabloid newspaper or a journal like Foreign Affairs, and that’s one aspect of what Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980) explained as “…the medium is the message…” in Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (1964).

Broadsheet: Most associated with the now mostly extinct large-form newspaper, the term “broadsheet was used to describe a large-format single sheet for public display.  A broadsheet (broadside also used) could be similar in size to a “poster” and was also a large sheet of paper (or cardboard or other flat surface), printed on one side and designed to be posting in some public place affording wide visibility.  Broadsheets often were used for announcements, news or proclamations by governments and often featured a mix of bold and dense text, woodcut illustrations once a popular inclusion.  The information could include public notices (executions, laws, events, rewards offered for this and that).

Poster for French market release of The Canyons (2013). 

Poster: Although often thought a twentieth century form, the poster is an ancient medium and definitionally it now differs from a broadsheet in that it seeks to convey a message with the use of image rather than text.  Additionally, when text does appear on a poster (and most do include some), especially in the larger formats, it’s often in a stylized form or a typeface which is obviously “artistic”.  The poster is a practical example of the adage “a picture is worth a thousand words” and there have been some memorable eras in posters as graphic art in the twentieth century assumed a previously denied respectability.  In part this was due to the new movements in art (futurism, orphism, cubism etc) being ideally suited to the poster's traditional rectangular aspect but the finest in the genre were probably those in the traditions of art deco, pop art and psychedelia.  Posters, although two-dimensional and static, remain popular appear to have weathered the onset of digital (and may even have benefited from the technology) and it seems likely AI (artificial intelligence) will also be adapted.

Circular: A circular is a document periodically distributed to a targeted, defined audience.  There is no one definition of what a circular looks like, it may be brief or long and come in a variety of (usually smallish) sizes but its core purpose tends to be  the dissemination of informational deemed to be of interest to the audience (or, at least, that in which it’s thought they should be interested).  The classic circulars are now those used for institutional communication (churches great users of the concept).

Victoria’s Secrets catalogue which, on the internet, works as a kind of combination of advertising copy and interactive database.

Catalogue: Catalogues have a long history in modern commerce and the model used by Amazon and such is exactly the same as the old “mail order catalogues” which in the nineteenth century the Americans perfected as a means of distributing goods (via the US Mail) over vast distances.  What has changed is the immediacy; while something ordered through Amazon can land on one’s porch within 24 hours, goods ordered from a mail-order catalogue might not be seen for weeks.  Still, the principle remains the same.  A catalogue is understood as a list of products and that may be as simple as pages of text or accompanied by lavish and tempting illustrations.

Brochure: A brochure is a “puff-piece” and a kind of advertising pamphlet.  A brochure may focus on a single product, a number of products or a manufacturer’s entire range.  Accordingly, a brochure may be a single page or a longer document which is distinguished from a catalogue only in the level of detail tending to be greater.

1961 Ford Galaxie Starliner (left) & 1962 Galaxie with “distinguished hardtop styling” (aka “boxtop”, right)

There are even “fake brochures”.  The aerodynamic qualities the 1960-1961 Ford Galaxie Starliner, possessed by virtue of its gently sloping rear roof-line, generated both speed and stability on the NASCAR (National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing) ovals; that made it a successful race-car but in the showrooms, after some early enthusiasm, sales dropped so it was replaced in 1962 with an implementation of the “formal” style which had been so well-received when used on the Thunderbird.  As the marketing department predicted (or, more correctly, worked out from the results of their focus-group sessions), what they called “distinguished hardtop styling” proved more commercially palatable but while customers may have been seduced, the physics of fluid dynamics didn’t change and the “buffeting” induced at speeds above 140 mph (225 km/h) limited performance, adversely affected straight-line stability (especially when in close proximity to other cars); it also increased fuel consumption, in distance racing especially, something as significant as weight, speed and power.  What the “distinguished hardtop styling” had done was make the Galaxie less competitive on the circuits, the loss of up to 3 mph (5 km/h) in top speed the difference being winning and losing; putting on the lipstick had produced a pig.

Beware of imitations: Images from Ford's 1962 Galaxie Starlift “brochure” which didn't fool the NASCAR scrutineers. 

Quickly to regain the lost aerodynamic advantage, Ford fabricated a handful of detachable fibreglass hard-tops which could be “bolted on”, essentially transforming a Galaxie convertible back into something as slippery (and even a little lighter) as the previous Starliner.  Having no intention of incurring the expense of designing and engineering them to an acceptable consumer standard (which they knew few anyway would buy) Ford simply gave the hand-made plastic roof the name “Starlift”, allocated a part-number and even mocked-up a brochure for NASCAR's officials to read.  Although on paper it appeared a FADC (factory-authorized dealer accessory) like any other (floor-mats, mud flaps etc), an inspection of the device revealed it was obviously phoney, the rear passenger glass on each side not fitting the sloping C-pillar, demanding the use of a pair of tacked-on plastic fillers to close the gap and it was obvious the thing wasn’t close to being waterproof.  Although prepared to turn a blind eye when it suited them, NASCAR thought all this beyond the pale and outlawed the scam.

Triumph Stag magazine advertising: Although conforming to the general specifications of a “flyer” (one page, single side printing, single purpose theme), magazine advertising tended to use the style and techniques of brochures, some would classify this as a “brochure” because of the shared design language.  Because of constraints of space, such advertising usually didn’t contain the wealth of technical details which typically were included in catalogues.

Political campaign flyers: Physical copies printed for crooked Hillary Clinton’s (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) campaign in the New Hampshire Primary seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination for the 2008 US presidential election (left) and a digital template for those supporting Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) in the 2024 US presidential election.  Crooked Hillary’s flyer was distributed by her campaign team; the Trump material was hosted by various Republican-aligned PACs (political action committees).

Flyer, handbill & leaflet: Whether in form or content a flyer, handbill or leaflet differ really doesn’t matter and the three terms are used interchangeably, the choice a function of local practice.  All three imply something small, cheap and “handed-out” (often in the literal sense of someone standing on a street-corner) for some limited, specific purpose (such as a new sushi bar opening around the corner).  The small leaflets came to be known as flyers (the original term in late 1880s US use was “fly-sheet”) on the notion of “made to be scattered around” (ie, the image of stuff “flying around”).  Prior to “flyer” catching on, such papers were called “hand-bills”, that term based on “billboards” (large, poster sized displays) so a handbill was “a bill conveniently held in the hand”.

Patent

Patent (pronounced pat-nt or peyt-nt)

(1) The exclusive right, granted by a government to an inventor (or owner of the invention) to manufacture, use or sell an invention for a certain length of time.

(2) An invention or process protected by an exclusive right to manufacture, use, or sell it.

(3) An official document conferring on the inventor the exclusive right to manufacture, use, or sell an invention; letters patent.

(4) Protected by an exclusive right given to an inventor to manufacture, use, or sell an invention; patented; the holding of an exclusive right to manufacture, use, or sell an invention.

(5) Relating to, concerned with, or dealing with the granting of exclusive rights to sell or manufacture something, especially inventions (ie the matter of “patent law” dealt with by a “patent attorney”.

(6) Of or pertaining to a right, privilege etc conferred by a patent.

(7) To take out a patent on; obtain the exclusive rights to (an invention, process, etc) by securing a patent.

(8) In US law, the instrument with which by which the federal government conveys a legal title in fee-simple (freehold) to public land.

(9) An ellipsis of patent leather (a varnished, high-gloss leather used in fashion for shoes, handbags, coats and such).

(10) As patent leather, a hide treated in a way which results in a very shiny surface.

(11) Of plate glass, ground and polished on both sides,

(12) In pharmaceuticals, (of a medication) sold without a prescription and usually protected by an exclusive legal right to manufacture (described often as “patent remedies” or “patent drugs”).

(13) In medicine, (of a duct or passage in the body) open or unobstructed.

(14) In medicine (including veterinary medicine) of an infection, in the phase when the organism causing it can be detected by clinical tests.

(15) In phonetics, open, in various degrees, to the passage of the breath stream.

(16) In metallurgy to heat a metal above a transformation temperature and then quench (cool) it in preparation for cold-drawing, wire pulling etc.

(17) In gambling, the combination of seven bets on three selections, offering a return even if only one bet comes in.

(18) In baking (of flour), fine, and consisting mostly of the inner part of the endosperm of the grain from which it is milled.

(19) In botany (and sometimes in horticulture and agriculture generally), expanded or spreading.

(20) Lying open; not enclosed or shut in (often as “a patent field” and applied also to open doorways, passages and such.

(21) Readily open to notice or observation; evident unconcealed, conspicuous, palpable, clear (usually in the phrase “patently obvious”).

(22) To originate and establish as one's own.

(23) A characteristic or quality that one possesses; in particular (hyperbolic) as if exclusively; a monopoly (often in the form “got a patent on”).

(24) An official document granting a right (the significance of the "patent" element in "letters patent" being it indicated the document was openly published an accessible to all (ie in the sense of the Latin patēns).

(25) Any right granted by such a document.

1250–1300: As an adjective, patent was from the Middle English patent, from the Latin patent-, stem of patēns (open, standing open), present participle of patēre (to stand open, lie open).  The Middle English noun patent (document granting an office, property, right, title, etc.; document granting permission, licence; papal indulgence, pardon) was either a clipping of “letters patent”, a translation of the Medieval Latin littera patēns or litterae patentēs (open letters) or was directly from the Anglo-Norman and Middle French patente (which endures in modern French as patent) or a clipping of the Anglo-Norman lettres patentes, Middle French lettres patentes, lettre patente and Old French patentes lettres (document granting an office, privilege, right, etc or making a decree).  The adjective patent (granting a right, privilege, or power) emerged late in the fourteenth century while the sense of “open to view, plain, clear” was in use by at least 1505 and use as an adverb dates from the mid fifteenth century.

The verb dates from the 1670s and was derived from the Middle English nouns patent & patente (wide open; clear, unobstructed; unlimited; of a document: available for public inspection), from the Anglo-Norman & Middle French patent and directly from their etymon the Latin patēns (open; accessible, passable; evident, manifest; exposed, vulnerable), the present active participle of pateō (to be open; to be accessible, attainable; to be exposed, vulnerable; of frontiers or land: to extent, increase), from the primitive Indo-European pete or peth- (to spread out; to fly).  The verb originally was used in the sense of “to obtain right to land" by securing letters patent” while the meaning “obtain a copyright to an invention” was in use by at least 1822, building on the earlier meaning (recorded in 1789) “obtain an exclusive right or monopoly” a privilege granted by the Crown by the issue of letters patent.  Patents issued thus (for a licence granted by a government covering a new and useful invention, conferring exclusive right to exploit the invention for a specified term of years) came into use in the 1580s.  Patent is a noun, verb & adjective, patenter, patentor, patentee, patentholder, patency, patentability, impatency, patency & prepatent are nouns, patented is a verb & adjective, patenting is a verb, patentable, antipatent, patentlike, patentfree, patentless & impatent are adjectives and patentably & patently are adverbs; the noun plural is patents.  The derived forms (nonpatentable, unpatentability, repatent etc) are used as required.

Alice Geek Teck^TM strapless bra.  The product was released with Geek Teck^TM still in its "Pat. pend" phase.

The Alice Geek Teck^TM strapless bra was released in 2015, its novelty being the use of “Patent-Pending Geek Teck^TM” panels which exploited the Van Der Waals forces (intermolecular electrostatic attractive forces) created by their silicone construction with microscopic hair-like structures known as setae (analogous to those found on the feet of geckos, famous for their ability to attach themselves (upside-down) to ceilings, using, if need be, only one foot.  The theory was the Geek Teck^TM panels would “stick to” the wearer’s skin thereby enhancing the most important design imperative of the strapless bra: staying up.  US patent 9,402,424 was assigned to Kellie K apparel LLC but it seems not to have succeeded which is unfortunate because there’s a gap in the market for a genuinely gravity-defying strapless bra.

The familiar term “patent pending” (often seen stamped on products in the abbreviated form “Pat. pend.”) is used to indicate a patent application has been filed but has not yet been granted.  The significance of the use is: (1) it can act to deters competitors, signalling to potential “copycats” that patent protection is expected to be granted, thus discouraging attempts at imitation, (2) it’s thought to lend credibility to a product, thus conferring a marketing advantage, (3) it can make a product more attractive to potential investors because a patent grants years of protection from competition and (4) the existence of the label can in subsequent infringement proceedings lead to a higher award of damages because it can be used as evidence the other party did not act “in good faith”.  However, the mere existence of a “Pat. Pend.” label does not provide legal protection and others may still (at their own risk) copy and sell the product, something of significance because patent applications can take months (or even years in complex or contested matters) to process and there have been cases where a company violating a subsequently granted patent has “come and gone” (taking with them their profits) by the time a patent is granted.  Importantly, a manufacturer cannot mark something as “Pat. Pend.” just to try to ward of potential competition and in most jurisdictions it’s unlawful to use the term if no application has been filed.  In legal slang, “patentees” and “patentspeak” are terms referring to the legal and technical jargon used in the handling of patents while “patentometrics” is the statistical analysis of patents.

In law, “patent troll” is an informal term used (usually disparagingly) to describe an individual or company which acquires and enforces patents in an aggressive and opportunistic manner, often with no intention of producing, marketing, or promoting the subjects of the patents.  The term is based on the similar concepts “trademark troll” and “copyright troll” and in more formal use a “patent troll” is usually styled a “patent assertion entity” or a “non-practicing entity”.  The seemingly curious business model (making money by neither producing or selling stuff to which one holds the exclusive patent) works usually through litigation or (more typically) the threat of litigation, exploiting the cost–benefit imbalance between contesting versus settling a lawsuit.  Sometimes speculatively but usually because potential targets have been identified, patent trolls will (1) buy older or unused patents from bankrupt companies, small inventors or concerns which have no further use for them or (2) file new patents that are broad or vague, something especially prevalent in highly technical fields where change is rapid (anything IT related the classic example) and specialists can amass hundreds or even thousands of patents, some unambiguously enforceable, some with enough of a hint of validity to be a creditable threat.  Thus equipped, patent trolls search for possible targets for litigation, the ideal victims being (1) companies so big they might settle a claim for what is (for them) a small sum (though most lucrative for the trolls who may have done little more than send a C&D (cease & desist letter)) or (2) smaller companies which cannot afford the cost of litigation (they might settle for less but it’s still a profit to the troll) because even if a case successfully is defended, the cost of doing so can, in the US, run to millions.

What that means is the troll’s business model has three potential revenue streams: (1) licensing fees, (2) one-off settlements and (3) court-awarded damages (in the rare instances in which a case goes to trial).  With no costs associated with R&D (research & development), product testing, production or marketing, a troll’s overheads are comparatively minimal and limited usually to legal and administrative fees.  Highly developed practitioners of trolling also use elaborate company structures made up of trusts, shelf companies and such, often in trans-national form, the jurisdictions chosen on the basis of which is most advantageous for a certain purpose (secrecy, taxation arrangements, limitations of liability etc); all these layers can protect a troll’s assets from counter-claims.  Patents are also “just another asset” and once assembled become a portfolio which can be leveraged as investment vehicles, something done often by the device of bundling them in securitized form, sometimes S&Ded (sliced & diced) for sale to investors, not as individual patents but as a percentage of the whole.

Some products become known as “patent something” because they gained their original uniqueness by virtue of patent protection.  In nautical use, a “patent log” is a mechanical device dragged from the stern of the vessel and used to indicate the craft’s speed through the water; most consist of a rotator (ie on the principle of a propeller) and reading unit, connected by a stiff line (usually covered with a flexible, protective skin).  Even in the age of electronic sensors, patent logs remain in use because they are simple, reliable, low maintenance units which require no external power source, the rotator spinning as it proceeds astern, the rotations of the connecting line registered by a wheel works and dial mounted to the vessel's rail.  The earliest versions of mechanical logs had the counting attached directly to the rotator, meaning the apparatus had to be hauled aboard to “take a reading” so the US innovation in the 1860s of a connecting line (spinning a la the mechanical speedometers which later would appear in automobiles) was an advance which made the thing a “real time” device.

An 1881 Patent Log by Thomas Walker, on display at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum.

For many reasons, to know a vessel’s true speed was an important part of seamanship and “log” element in the name came from the old way sailors determined speed.  Since the sixteenth century, the technique had been to attach knotted rope to a wooden log which was heaved overboard and, the knots being tied at regular intervals, the number of knots counted off over a short period indicating the speed.  From this came the standard unit of speed at sea being the “knot” (one knot being equal to one nautical mile per hour and few things annoy old salts more than the expression “knots per hour”).  The log method obviously was inexact because of the variables to which it was subject so the mechanical device was a great advance.  A company founded by Thomas Walker (1805-1873) as a nautical instrument maker based in Birmingham (in England about as far as one can get from the sea) received a patent for a mechanical log in 1878, sometime before one was granted by the US patent office although that application was submitted in 1877.

Lindsay Lohan during blonde phase in Lanvin patent leather coat, New York City, May 2007.

“Patent leather” describes a hide which has been coated with a process using a substance which produces a high-gloss finish, so shiny as to be described as “like a polished, glazed ceramic”.  In fashion, the attraction of patent leather is that despite the brittle appearance, it retains all the flexible qualities and durability of leather while being almost waterproof (although intrusion can of course be possible at the seams).  Most associated with shoes, boots, handbags and coats, the original patent leather seems exclusively to have been produced in black but a wide range of colors have long been available so the material quickly became a favourite of designers.  In the late 1700s when patent leather first became commercially available in England, the lacquer coating was linseed oil-based but what revolutionized things and made mass-production more viable was the invention by metallurgist Alexander Parkes (1813–1890) of Parkesine, the first man-made “plastic”; it was one of his dozens of patented inventions, thus the name “patent leather”.  It was Parkesine which enabled the development of multi-colored patent leathers and because the product literally is “leather with a synthetic coating”, it’s one of the natural products most easily emulated (in appearance) by a plastic alternative although the imitations never possessed the same qualities.  Interestingly, many of the various processes used early in the nineteenth century to patent leather were never patented.

The former Court of Star Chamber (1836), drawing by unknown artist.

There were also “patent theatres”.  In England letters patent were for years a standard device in the administration of censorship, something that attracted increased interest from governments as soon as the printing presses began to operate at scale.  The printing press was one of the great creations of civilization but their availability appalled priest and politician alike because the last thing they wanted was “the common people” being given ideas (which they knew quickly would become heresy and sedition).  Under Henry VIII (1491–1547; King of England (and Ireland after 1541) 1509-1547) proclamations against heretical and seditious publications soon appeared and in 1538 a statute was added declaring books must be licensed for printing by the Privy Council or other royal nominees.  What this did was create a flourishing black market for works produced by illegal presses and this battle between censorship and “underground” publications would for some 450 years characterize the way things were done in England.  One critical development came in 1557 when the Stationers' Company was granted a “charter of incorporation” which provided that only members of the company (or others holding a special patent) were allowed to print any work for sale in the kingdom.  In 1586, the ever imaginative Court of Star Chamber devised an ordinance which directed that no printing press might be set up in any place other than London (with the exception of one each for the university towns Oxford and Cambridge) and rigorously, the Star Chamber enforced this law with their usual zeal and although the court was in 1641 abolished by the Long Parliament, governments didn’t lose their fondness for censorship; under the Commonwealth restrictions were tightened with all “unofficial periodicals” (a move aimed at troublesome “newsletters, precursors to modern magazines and newspapers) banned and while the Rump Parliament of 1659 permitted “licensed newsbooks”, severely their issue was restricted.

During the Restoration period neither the government’s strategy or tactics much changed and material deemed libellous or offensive (values which cast a wide net) to the state or Church could see offenders fined, imprisoned pilloried or hanged (the last invoked if the offence was judged “high treason”).  By the eighteenth century things had somewhat been relaxed but Thomas Paine (1737-1809) was nevertheless compelled to flee to France when his book Rights of Man (1791) was declared “subversive” and a warrant issued for his arrest; even an article condemning the use of disciplinary flogging by the military could attract a fine of Stg£1,000 (then a small fortune) and two years in prison.  Being popular entertainment and accessible to even the illiterate, censorship of the theatre was important and the licensing of individual plays seems to have begun as early as the 1640s with an inspired piece of legislation in 1572 deeming all players (actors) “rogues and vagabonds” unless they belonged to (1) a baron of the realm, (2) somebody of higher rank or (3) were licensed by two justices.

Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, London, one of the original two "patent theatres".

Later, London’s theatrical companies worked under royal patents created by issue of the appropriate letters patent.  Curiously, governments, while much concerned with the preservation of political & ecclesiastical power, had rather neglected public morality but the Puritans were appalled by even the idea of the theatre.  Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658; Lord Protector of the Commonwealth 1653-1658) and his ilk thought the stage a place of immorality and in 1542 the Long Parliament prohibited all dramatic performances.  Inevitably, with theatres closed, an underground movement arose, the best documented of which were the Droll-Humours.  At or after the Restoration, letters patent were issued so companies could be formed and in 1662 these conferred on the recipients the exclusive right to present, in public, plays in public within the City of Westminster.  It proved a lucrative business and after the deaths of the original holders of the rights, lawyers began their squabble over to whom or what entity the letters patent should be conveyed; the disputes dragged on for some time before ultimately they were settled on the Covent Garden and Drury Lane theatres.  These enduring institutions thus came to be called the “patent theatres” and what the letters called “drama” was confined to the patent theatres.  However, nobody had bothered to define exactly what constituted “legitimate drama” and that remained a source of dispute among critics and lawyers, resolved only when the Theatres Act (1843) rendered the original letters patent inoperative.

Drawing of patent hammer, attached to Mr Richard’s application to the US Patent Office. the image is from the Trowel and Masonry Tool Collector Resource.

In stone-masonry, a “patent hammer” is a specialized hammer used by stonemasons for dressing stone, the head having two faces formed by a number (at least 2 but usually with 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 “cuts” (blades) broad, thin chisels bolted side by side); the bolts could be loosened, allowing the blades to be removed to be re-sharpening or replaced.  The head of a patent hammer was heavy and the tool was used for finishing granite or the harder grades of sandstone and the choice of which to use was dictated by nature of the stone and the finish desired.  Historically, the most commonly used jaw opening was ⅞ inch but other graduations between ½ and one inch were widely produced and in the jargon of the trade, the number of cuts per nominal inch became the nominal description (eg an “8-cut finish”).  Essentially a time-saving device, use of a patent hammer allowed a stonemason to render a grooved surface more quickly and with more consistency than when using a single hand chisel.  The tools were in various places known also as the “patent bush hammer” “Scotia hammer” and “patent Scotia hammer” although, as a general principle, the Scotias usually were lighter and featured smaller jaw openings.  The tool gained its name from the patent granted in 1828 to Joseph Richards (1784-1848) of Braintree, Massachusetts and although the evidence suggests similar devices had for centuries been in use (presumably crated ad-hoc by stonemasons or tool-makers), this issue of the 1828 patent triggered an onrush of patent applications for stonemasonry tools and the US Patent Office (which classed them as “bush hammers” or “mill picks” to distinguish them from other hammers) soon had literally dozens of variants on the books.

In English law, letters patent and royal decrees (now more commonly styled as royal proclamations) are instruments with which the Crown exercises its prerogative powers, but they differ in form, purpose, and legal effect.  Letters patent are formal, written documents issued under the Great Seal, open for public inspection, declaring the monarch’s will in a matter of public record; they are addressed to all subjects, not to an individual or private recipient.  As an administrative device, letters patent are used to confirm rights, titles, offices, or privileges (including creating or conferring peerages or knighthoods) granting corporate charters (universities or city incorporations etc), issuing patents of invention or land grants and appointing public offices of state (governors, judges etc).  As legal devices, they operate as instruments of grant rather than command and unusually, take effect by virtue of being published, not by their delivery, registration or some form of gazetting.  Importantly, they can be subject to judicial challenge and voided if found to have been issued ultra vires (a legal maxim from the from Latin ultra vires (beyond the power) meaning (in this case) held to be beyond the monarch’s lawful prerogative) so although sounding something of an echo of the days of absolute power being exercised from the throne, they do operate within modern constitutional limits.

A royal proclamation is a command or declaration made by the monarch and issued over their signature but almost always drafted by the responsible ministers in government and published in the Gazette.  While a term like “royal proclamation” sounds like it might be used for commands like “off with their heads”, in modern use, typically, they’re invoked to announce or enforce policies, order, or regulations and that this is done under the royal prerogative is merely procedural.  So, while most are prosaic, (the regulation of this and that; announcing public holidays or public ceremonies etc), historically, royal proclamations have declared war and routinely still are the instrument summoning or dissolving parliament.  In the narrow technical sense the royal proclamation operates as an executive command rather than a grant but has a valid force of law only when issued under a lawful prerogative or statutory authority (since the Bill of Rights (1689), proclamations cannot create new offences or change existing law without the consent of both houses of parliament (as modified by the Parliament Acts (1911 & 1949)).

Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor (the former Prince Andrew, Duke of York) in the Garter robe he no longer dons (at least not when in public view).  Mr Mountbatten Windsor is the great grandson of King George V.

Because most are procedural, letters patent usually barely register in the public consciousness but, around the world, their use in late 2025 in the matter of Andrew Albert Christian Edward Mountbatten Windsor (b 1960) certainly made headlines.  Mr Mountbatten Windsor once was styled HRH (His Royal Highness) Prince Andrew, Duke of York, KG (Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter), GCVO (Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order) but the controversy about his alleged conduct with certain young women associated with the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein (1953–2019) meant that between 2022 and 2025, almost all his many titles gradually were (in one way or another) put into abeyance before his brother Charles III (b 1948; King of the United Kingdom since 2022) issued the letters patent effectively removing all.

Until that point, the gradual nibbling away of Mr Mountbatten Windsor’s array of titles had been an example of inept crisis management with him in 2022 ceasing to be a “HRH” in a “public capacity” but remaining one in his “private capacity”.  That didn’t mean he could use it only in his bedroom but meant it couldn’t be used were he to appear at any “official public event”.  While one being able to call oneself “HRH” only in private (presumably among consenting adults) might sound a bit of a slap on the royal wrist, it is possession of styles and titles which determine one’s place in the “order of precedence”, something of great significance to those who move in certain circles because where one sits on the pecking order determines things like who has to bow or curtsy to whom and whether at events one gets to sit somewhere nice with the dukes & earls or is shunted off into a corner with the provincial mayors and eldest sons of knights.  As a weapon, the removal of the “HRH” has been used against the Duchess of Windsor (Wallis Simpson; 1896–1986), Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) and the Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle; b 1981).  Although Mr Mountbatten Windsor’s notorious television interview (approved by the palace courtiers against the advice of the media pros) seemed at the time the nadir of the crisis management of the “Andrew problem” (ranking with Boeing’s handing of the 737 Max’s “issues” and Intel’s attempt to “non-handle” the flaws in the original Pentium’s inbuilt math co-processor), the “drip feed” of the way his styles and titles gradually were eroded made things worse still.  As a footnote, the former Prince Andrew is now known as “Andrew Mountbatten Windsor” rather than “Andrew Windsor” because his father (Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (1921–2021)) was upset his sons wouldn’t bear his name so the “Mountbatten” was added.

Revelations about his alleged conduct continued to emerge and in mid October, 2025, it was announced that following discussions with the king, he would cease to make use of the styles of address to which he was entitled as a duke and twice a knight of the realm (both knighthoods being in orders of chivalry in the personal gift of the sovereign (his mother) with no involvement by government).  That didn’t mean he ceased to be a duke (with subsidiary peerages) or the possessor of two knighthoods in orders of chivalry, just that he would no longer “use them”.  That meant for all public purposes he would revert to what he was by virtue of his birth: plain old “Prince Andrew”.  Had the revelations stopped there, the “fix” might have worked but as fresh accusations continued to appear, not only was the press making trouble but there were suggestions “the Andrew problem” might be discussed on the floor of the House of Commons where members enjoy what’s called “parliamentary privilege” (the right to make even defamatory statements without risk of legal action).  What appeared to be of particular interest to some politicians was Mr Mountbatten Windsor remaining eighth in the line of succession to the British throne (and thus the monarchies of Australia, the Bahamas, Belize, Canada and such).

Accordingly, on 30 October 2025, the palace announced the king would be removing all his brother's styles, titles, and honours.  While technically this does not revoke the peerages, it does mean they are no longer “effective” and thus not affecting the vital order of precedence.  On 3 November, the king issued letters patent stripping Andrew of both the style “HRH” and title “prince”.  That the king can do this by the mere inking of a sheet of vellum is because (1) letters patent are a powerful tool and (2) in 1917 George V (1865–1936; King of the United Kingdom & Emperor of India 1910-1936) effectively codified the monarch’s authority in such matters; no involvement by parliament being required.  In 1917 the UK was at war with the German Empire so anti-German sentiment was about and as well as changing the royal family’s name from the obviously Teutonic Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor, the opportunity was taken for an “agonizing reappraisal” of the domestic structure.

Letters Patent issued by George V, 30 November 1917.  When mention was made to the "Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", the reference was literally to a big wax seal.

Thus, King George V issued letters patent restricting use of the titles “Prince” & “Princess” and the style “HRH” to certain close relatives of the monarch: (1) the children of the sovereign, (2) the male-line grandchildren of the sovereign (3) and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (ie the heir apparent’s eldest son).  Other descendants of the monarch would be styled as children of dukes (Lord or Lady).  In doing this George V wasn’t claiming or asserting a new royal prerogative (it had long been acknowledged) but his issue of the 1917 Letters Patent was the moment it was codified and assumed the force of a formal decree.  That’s why it’s misleading to say the UK doesn’t have a written constitution; it’s just all the bits and pieces don’t appear in one consolidated document al la the US, Australia or the old Soviet Union.  The words of the 1917 Letters Patent were:

“Whitehall, 30^th November, 1917.  The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing date the 30th day of November, 1917, to declare that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour; and that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms.

And forasmuch as it has become expedient that the usage whereby the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and of Prince or Princess shall be borne by other descendants of Our said Grandfather of blessed memory shall cease, We do hereby further declare that the said styles, titles or attributes shall not henceforth be borne by such descendants of Our said Grandfather save those above mentioned.”

Legally, “Our said Grandfather” actually referred to Victoria (1819–1901; Queen of the UK 1837-1901) and what the proclamation did was revoke the practice from Victoria’s time where almost all male-line descendants of the monarch were styled as princes or princesses.  Some countries still operate on the Victorian basis and a particular example is Saudi Arabia, a nation where, under their interpretation of the Sharia, kings and princes may enjoy more than the four wives which is the accepted limit in most Islamic nations which permit polygyny.  The royal scions have thus proliferated and if one moves in certain exulted circles, apart from the odd waiter or hairdresser, it can be possible to go through life and never meet a Saudi who is not a prince or princess.  In Saudi, for many reasons, it would be difficult to change the system but in Demark there recently was a cull of princes and princesses (the titles that is) with those who didn’t make the cut reverting to being count and countess of this and that.  For almost a century the 1917 Letters Patent remained the convention followed but  on 31 December 2012, Elizabeth II (1926-2022; Queen of the UK and other places, 1952-2022) issued letters patent extending both HRH and Prince or Princess status to all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales:

“Whitehall, 31^st December, 2012.  The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated the 31st day of December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.”

What that achieved was a bit of “title creep”.  Under the George V rule, only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would have been styled a prince; younger siblings would not have been princes or princesses but rather Lord or Lady Mountbatten-Windsor.  What Elizabeth II’s 2012 Letters Patent did was equalize things so all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would be both HRH and princes or princesses; it’s a thoughtful great-grandmother who thinks of a way to avoid sibling rivalry.  There have since been no further general amendments to the 1917 convention although the royal prerogative has been used to grant or remove titles individually, such the letters patent issued granting the titles prince & princess to the Duke of Sussex’s children.

Windsor Castle, September, 2025.

The UK government's state banquet in honor of the visiting Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025), hosted in Windsor Castle in September 2025.  Where one sits on the UK's order of precedence will influence (1) whether one is invited and (2) whether one gets a "good" seat.  Among US presidents, Mr Trump's second state visit was unprecedented.

So, titles and styles are quite a thing in royal families because they operate as a pecking order atop a pecking order.  Despite the frequency with which the claim is made, the British royal family is not wholly averse to change and one change they would be welcome would be things going back to how they were done decades or centuries ago: In 1938, George VI (1895–1952; King of the United Kingdom 1936-1952), being driven through Surry in the company of a US journalist, gestured through the window towards Runnymede, telling his companion: “That’s where the troubles started”.  For the institution of the monarchy, there have since 1215 been many troubles, some quite serious but apart for a brief, aberrant, republican interlude, one royal household or another has remained in place, challenges dealt with as they’ve arisen.  For the royal family, the matter of “the Andrew problem” is not so much what he’s alleged to have done (which could have been handled with the odd wry smile and otherwise never spoken of) but the ghastliness of it becoming public knowledge among “the common people”.  The attraction of “fixing things” by the use of letters patent is it’s quick and (it’s hoped) will mean “the Andrew problem” doesn’t end up being discussed in the House of Commons.  That would be bad enough but once such things start they can get out of hand and if one matter about the royal family is being discussed in parliament, there’s no guarantee it wouldn’t lead to other aspects being questioned.  There are many things about the royal family and their place in the UK’s constitutional apparatus which they’d prefer not be discussed and certainly not in the House of Commons.  As a tactic, the letters patent may well keep the commoners in the Commons at bay but Mr Mountbatten Windsor’s life may yet get worse because various institutions in the US are interested in questioning him in relation to alleged offences committed on US soil and an extradition request is not impossible.