The Sun.
London, England, 1861-09-07 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATtTRDA.Y EV-gNi

the granting of patents, but it shall be open to inventors to
renew their applications notwithstanding previous refusal.
" 3. That the said tribunal should be formed by a per
manent and salaried judge, assisted when necessary by the
advice of scientific assessors, and that its sittings should be
public.
" 4. That the same tribunal should have exclusive juris-
diction to try patent causes, subject to a right of appeal.
"5. That the jurisdiction of such tribunal should be ex-
tended to the trial of all questions of copyright and regis-
tration of design.
"6. That the scientific assessors for the trial of patent
causes should be five in number (to be chosen from a panel
of 30, to be nominated by the Commissioners of Patents),
for the adjudication of facts, when deemed necessary by the
judge or demanded by either of the parties.
"7. That the right of appeal should be to a Court of the
Exchequer Chamber, with a final appeal to the House of
Lords.

"8. That for the preliminary examination the assessors
(if the judge requires their assistance) should be two in
number, named by the Commissioners of Patents from the
existing panel; the decision to rest with the judge.
"9. That the committee approve the principle of com-
pelling patentees to grant licences on terms to be fixed by
arbitration, or in case the parties shall not agree to such
arbitration, then by the proposed tribunal, or by an arbi-
trator or arbitrators appointed by the said tribunal.
" 10. That a report be drawn up in conformity with the
resolutions passed by this committee, and that the council,
if such report be approved by them, be requested to allow
it to be read at the meeting of the British Association to be
held at Manchester this year."
In the report it was observed that the objects the
committee had in view were to devise means by
which those evils that had sprung from the changes
lately introduced into the Patent Laws might be
remedied, and better protection secured to property
in inventions. Many matters of detail were dis-
cussed, but the minds of t he committee were chiefly
directed to the best means of preventing grants for
worthless or frivolous inventions, and to the con-
stitution of a tribunal for objections and infringe-
ments. A preliminary examination was considered
essential, since the cost of patents had been so much
reduced and the facility of obtaining them was so
great. The notion that an inventor had a right to
a patent for any invention, whatever its merits or
want of novelty, leaving to subsequent investiga-
tion the question of validity, was founded on
erroneous views of the principle on which patents
were granted. The object of the Legislature in
excepting inventions from the law against mono-
polies was to benefit the public, who being
thus restrained from the exercise of a right must
receive some advantage in return, which advantage
was to be found in the invention for which a patent
was granted. The assessors referred to would vir-
tually discharge the functions of a jury, and they
would find all such facts as were necessary under
the direction of the judge.

Mr. HUGHES read the resolutions passed at a
meeting of the Manchester Patent Law Reform
Association, held the 30th of August, 1861.

Sir W. G. ARMSTRONG then read the following
paper " On the Patent Laws :"—Having lately on a
public occasion expressed my opinion on the impolicy
of the law of patents for inventions, I will take the
present opportunity of amplifying my remarks on
that subject, and in so doing I feel that I can pursue
no better course than to relate in the first place some
of my own personal experiences of the operation of
that law. Soon after I began to direct my atten-
tion to artillery the late Mr. Brunel consulted me
upon a plan of constructing a cannon by enveloping
an internal tube with wire. In theory the idea was
perfectly sound, but there were various practical
difficulties and objections to be removed. After
fully considering these Mr. Brunel determined to
have a gun made upon this plan at his own expense,
and I undertook to carry out the experiment for
him. But just as I commenced to do so it was dis-
covered that only a few weeks before a patent had
been taken out for the same idea, and Mr. Brunel
was in consequence precluded from proceeding
with his project. Now, with great respect for the
ability of the gentleman who in this instance was
enabled to acquire a monopoly of the idea, I must
be allowed to observe that if Mr. Brunel and
myself had remained at liberty to pursue the
experiment the public would have had at least
a double chance of realising the possession of
such a gun. As it is, the practical objec-
tions to the plan are still unremoved. This ex-
ample, which is not an exceptional one, exhibits
both the impolicy and the injustice of the law. It
was impolitic to prevent Mr. Brunel from applyieg
his talents and his money towards the attainment
of an object of public importance, and it was un-
just to give the monopoly to another without proof
of priority of idea. Cases of this kind must neces-
sarily be of frequent occurrence, because similarity
of circumstances will constantly suggest similar
ideas to different minds, and the man who first
applies to the Patent-office puts a stop upon all
others who are directing attention to the same sub-
ject. I will give another example of a different
kind, but equally cogent as the last. In 1849 the
Great Northern Railway Company proposed to use
for their railway carriages a solid wrought iron
wheel—that is to say, a wheel in which the spoke,
nave, and rim were made of wrought iron, welded
into a continuous piece. Among others I sent in a
pattern which was one of those chosen, and contracts
were entered into by the comyany with the suc-
cessful competitors. I had no suspicion that any
patent existed applicable to wheels of this nature,
and I believe the other makers were equally igno-
rant on the subject But after the contracts had
been completed and the wheels delivered, a claimant
,
appeared who produced a patent taken out in 1835,
and which had been lying dormant for upwards of
13 years, waiting until other persons had succeeded
in rendering a wheel of that description practi-
cable. This example shows in a strong light a vice
which runs through the whole patent system, viz.,
treating the mere scheme as the essential part of
the invention, and the working out as a matter of
minor importance. In the present instance the
scheme, or so called invention, amounted to nothing.
No one wanted to be informed that such a wheel
would have to be made by welding separate pieces
of iron in the centre and at the rim as described
by the patentee. There could be no difference of
opinion on that head. The only question was how
Ito proceed in order to produce the wheel of a good
quality and at a marketable price, and on these
points the specification was useless. The patentee
therefore did not advance the art of wheel making
one jot. • In all probability he never made a
wheel or tried a single experiment, and yet he suc-
ceded in levying a tax upon those who, by their
outlay and labour, had surmounted the real and
only difficulties of the case. I will mention one
other example, which, though a very ridiculous one,
is pertinent to the present subject. During the
Crimean war, when the attention was naturally
much directed to the improvement of artillery, a
certain inventor brought to the Ordnance Select
Committee a collection of about 100 schemes, which,
embraced every form of gun that could possibly be
invented. If, therefore, the committee would only
make terms with him they need never be troubled
with any future claimants. The committee was
overwhelmed with the multiplicity of the designs,
and begged the inventor to make a selection of those
tee considered the best. He accordingly picked out
a large number for a first examination, and, these
were handed over to Mr. Anderion, at that time the
inspector of machinery, for his report. Mr. Ander-
son, of course, found them a collection of those crude
ideas which pen-and-ink inventors can produce in
unlimited numbers, and which are almost worthless
until reduced to practice. The committee, there-
fore, by his advice declined to entertain them. Now,
whether this fertile inventor had sufficient confi-
dence in his schemes to induce him to take patents
far them, I do not know, but the law would certainly
have permitted him to do so, He had only to pay
his fees and invest his ideas with a semblance of
practical detail, in order to take possession of a wide
field of invention, to the exclusion of all persons
having the means and qualifications necessary for
arriving at practical results. This readiness to give
protection to mere schemes is the bane of the sys.
tem. Tho obstructive tendency of the patent laws
is aggravated by the fact that, in addition to the
patents which are legally valid there are an enor-
mous number incapable, if properly opposed, of
being enforced at law, but to which people quietly
sehmit rsther than incur a tronblesorne and expert.
hive iitigatioc. This is a necessary conbequeue
patents being indiscriminately granted to all ap-
plicants, without investigation of their claims ;