The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1874-12-26 00:00:00

Ehe ,3toarbrikqe O'Dberbtr.

SATURDAY, DECEMBER, Mb, 1874.

THE PATENT LAW.

As long as many people can remember, the
subject of Patents for Inventions has formed a
lively tepic of controversy. Innumerable have
been the ramifications of the arguments; and
the people. places, times, and forms of the con-
tention have been almost beyond reckoning.
Letters-patents have sometimes been condemned
with dogmatic authority in debating clubs, and
attacked will& fierceness by no less a persouage
than the Lord High Chancellor of England—
the present Lorff Selbourne, whim he adorned
the Bar and graced the House of Cornetts as Sir
Roundel' Palmer. On the other hand a Com-
mittee of the Lower House of Parliament, which
a year or two ago, had been obteined for the
purpose of pronouncing against the patent Laws
expressed a decided opinion in their favour.
Acts of the Legislature, Royal Commissione,
International Cinferences, and every sp:ciee of
deliberative and authotitative agency, have been
brought to be;Lr upon the questions of Patent or
no Patent. Yet the discussion conies up so
fresh and forcible as if the ground wan only just
broken, instead of presenting a threudoare as-
pect. Only very recently a deputation waited up-
on Lord Chancellor Cairns, pointing out the
necessity for an amendment in the Patent Laws
and at the saute time, there has been a long dis-
cussion at the Society of Arts. in London, where
Mr. F J. Bramwell, F RS,, President of the
Society of Mechanical Engineers, has argued on
the side of patents and patentees. 't'hat the
game iou possesses on extraordinary vitality was
obvious from the fact that although Mr. Bram-
well was admitted to have presented an unan-
swerable and conclusive case in favour of patents
the debate wee twice adjourned in order that
' the points raised might be fully ventilated.
Too subject is one which affects a large num-
ber of the intelligent easses, and there is no
doubt of its importance. Mr. Bramwell and
those who take his view, argue that a emu has
a right to the product of his ow I intellect, and
that it is maniiestiy unfair that he should be
deprived of the fruits of his labours through a
lack of protewinin on the part of the low. if a
man spends vveral years in perfecting se inven-
tion. has he nut a right to expect that he will be
alloWed to reap the reward of his industery, and
that those who wish to use his invention should
compensate Min for doing so? If there were
no patent bias, it would he open to the man
with neither brains nor genius to adopt as his
own that which had cost the man of intellect
years to produce without paying a ferthieg for
it. Those who would abolish the Patent laws,
urge their admitted imperfections as a reason
why these statutes should cease to exist. No
11,69111t011 Call lie perfect, and if eiviry
law which is not a model of transcendent wiedoni
wei oto lie N.-pt aW:ly Chen, %seam( be very few
left, and society would be in a state of anarchy.
Yet, althongla the argument which attacks the
principal of protection by patent is of a very
slender type, it receives the approval of eonie of
our mos.. emieent men. Lord Selborne, oats of
the lirst of our equity -lawyers, is opposed to pa-
tents ; and Sir William Armstrong, as an inven-
tor, does not like them. ['lire are some to
whom the very mention of the ward "protection"
is odious. It carries them back a generation ago
—to a thee oi fierce oolit,eill controversy. The
passions which were then aroused, seem to Miret
into ft tine it at the mere sound of a word
which WAS th, cry of the defeated party, and was
the hatred of the ultimate victors. Protection
for native industry was the demand whiclt wan
m to of SUSeiliSilie Governments, but which,
mme abolished, has never been restored by ally
Administration, of whatever complexion it may
happen to be politically. It is seen that ruore
it expands and the better it flourishes. It tithe
main argument of those who oppose the opera-
tion of the patent laws, that they interfere with
the freedom of trade, and therefore ought to be
abolished. The application is, however, widely
' differ, at in tie two (-seep. We ought be told
by et- rit logiidees and rigid political economists
that a good many of our laws were an interference
with the freedom of trade. Push tite argument
home, and it might even be applied to the enjoy
intent or the disposition of private property. It
is recorded if a former Duke of Ilichmend that
It ring had a Bank of England note struck for
-CAA)°, hue k.,pt the precious document locked
up in his strong box, and thus withdrew a cori-
siderable sum of money from circulation. Log-
ically, was not that an interference with the
freedom of trade. It might have been pointed
out to the duke that he was wronging the com-
munity by keeping, this money idle in his own
house, aud that, at 5 pi r cent. it might be bring.
lug Mtn in au additional £2,500 a year. He
would naturally reply that if he chuee to sacri-
fice de2,500 a year, that was his affair, and WU
no business whatever of other people.
We see, however, how Sir the argument of
the Patent Abolitionists might be pushed if it
WO logically applied. Much as the people Di