The Sun.
London, England, 1829-04-10 00:00:00

LAW OF PATENT INVENTIONS.

Mr. LENNARD rose to move for a Committee
to inquire into the present state of the law and prac-
tice of granting patents for inventions. He had no
intention of impugning the principle on which the
law in regard to patents was founded, nor of en-
croaching on the prerogative of the King to grant
them. The prerogative in that respect was as old
as the Constitution; it was clear that at Common
Law the Crown had the power of granting to the
inventor of any new and useful manufacture or art
the exclusive right of using or vending it for a rea-
sonable time. Such a grant was no violation of the
rule laid down by Lord Coke, that no one is to be
restrained of any freedom or liberty he had before,
or hindered in his lawful calling; such a grant, so
far from being injurious to the public, was, on the
contrary, beneficial to it, by tending to encourage
useful discoveries. But this power having been
greatly abused, particularly in the reigns of Queen
Elizabeth and King James, having been made the
means sometimes of enriching a favourite at the ex-
pence of the public, sometimes of raising a revenue
for the Prince, having (in the words of Queen Eli-
zabeth, when she revoked some monopolies which
had been complained of by Parliament) " been re-
peatedly turned to the hurt of the people," it was
at length found necessary to define and limit it by
statute, and to reduce it within its ancient and con-
stitutional limits, which was done by the well-known
Statute of Monopolies, passed in the 21st James I.
That statute suppressed all monopolies generally;
but the sixth clause in it authorised the
Crown to grant letters-patent, or grants of pri-
vilege for 14 years or under, of the sole working
or making of any new manufacture within the
realm to the true and first inventor of such manu-
facture. It was upon that clause that the right new
exercised by the Crown, of granting those letters,
which confer upon an inventor the right to the ex-
clusive benefit of his own invention for 14 years was
wholly founded. Whenever that power was exer-
cised, the privilege or protection thus granted was
the result of what might be called a compromise
between the Crown, or rather, he should say, the
public on the one hand, and the inventor on the
other. That clause, which did no more than de-
clare that it should be in the power of the Crown
to make such grants if it should think fit, left it to
the Crown to prescribe those terms on which it
would make the grant. Accordingly, in the reign
of Queen Anne, a condition was introduced into
the patent, which had always since been insisted on,
that the inventor should, within a certain time, gene.
rally within one or two, sometimes six, months after
the grant of the patent, enrol in the Court of Chan-
cery, such a deseription of his invention, that the
public might, at the expiration of the patent, have
the use of it in as cheap and beneficial a manner as
the patentee himself used it. By obtaining that
statement the public derived a benefit, and an
equivalent in return for the benefit the patentee
derived from his limited monopoly. In looking
at the limited and peculiar privilege granted by
letters patent, Which he had spoken of as a monopoly,
they must not confound it with the common notion
of a monopoly, which it was not, being merely a bar-
gain between the inventor and the public : the pub-
lic acquired something which it had not before, or
acquired it in a better form, or at a cheaper rate.—
And it was manifest that it was equally just, as it
was politic, that those who had employed their
time and spent- their money in the production -of
some new thing, which was to be useful to the
community, ought to be rewarded;—that he who
informed the public of a new method of increasing
their wealth or their comforts, should obtain a com-
pensation or recompense for his labours and inge-
nuity. The best and most appropriate method of
doing this seemed to be that which was marked out
by the statute,—namely, the giving an inventor a
limited monopoly in his own manufacture; for, in
proportion as his invention was valuable to society,
so would the amount of his profits increase. He
considered, therefore, that the principle was a sound
one on which our patent laws- were founded, and
which were intended, on the one hand, to stimulate
industry and ingenuity by securing to the inventors

reward proportionate to the value of their inven-
tions, and, on the other, to secure io the public the
perfect knowledge of such useful inventions or dis
Coveries as might be made. His object was to make
the law efficient for these purposes, which it was not
at present. He should not say any thing in regard to
the expense of taking out a patent: he had heard i
spoken of as a grievance, but he was not prepared to
say that the law required any alteration in that respect.
It was his own opinion at present, and he knew itwas
the opinion of many persons who had great expe-
rience in that part of our laws, that it was not de-
sirable to faciliate over-much the obtaining of pa-
tents by any reduction of expence; but what he
did contend for was, that when a patent was ob-
mined, it should be perfectly effectual for its
pose—namely, the security of this limited monopoly
to the inventor, and of so perfect a knowledge of the
invention to the public, that every one might use it
when the term of the patent was expired. Such
being the case, he would proceed to the considera-
tion of those parts of the law which he thought the
most important to bring under the attention of the
[louse, and in which he thought it possible some
improvement, on mature deliberation, might be
made. The patent, as he said, was granted on con-
ditition that the invention should, in the specifica-
tion, be accurately and completely de cribed—that
it should describe the best and properest materials,
and that the machine, or thing, or substance dis-
covered, should be accurately and completely de-
scribed. He was aware of the necessity of insisting
on that ; it was part of the bargain, and fairly made,
but the different interpretations that had been put on
the law, the doubt what the law was, the different and
the fluctuating opinions of Judges as to the application
and best mode of construing the law, had made the
property under letters-patent very insecure ; and had
tended manifestly to discourage inventors, who, see-
ing others lose the benefit of their labours, were
deterred from bringing forward their own in-
ventions. It was a sort of proverb among in-
ventors, that he who took out a patent took out
a law-suit with it ; and the issue of a law-suit in
support of a patent was so exceedingly once, ruin,
that the patent.right was said to be of comparatively
little value, till confirmed by the verdict of a Jury;
so that where there was any probability of a dis-
covery being kept private without a patent, as in
chymical discoveries, the secret was thought of far
more value than a patent. In mechanical inven-
tions, the machinery would for the most part betray
the secret ; but in chymical invention,, where the
secret could be better concealed, it had been said
that no man in his senses would think of disclosing
his secret for such an imperfect protection as a patent
gave him. The consequence of this was, that many
a valuable discovery died with the inventor, and was
lost to the public, or was locked up, and formed a
perpetual monopoly in the hands of his represema-
tiles. The principal cause of the insecurity of • the
patent consisted in the difficulty, not to say the im-
possibility often, of framing a specification which
should not be liable to any of the manifold and often
technical and formal objections which were allowed
to prevail against them in courts of law. He would
not weary the House with attempting to enumerate
the manifold imperfections in specifications, which
had been held to be fatal to the right of the paten.
tee. It was sufficient that it was notorious that the
drawing a specification was a matter of the greatest
possible nicety, and that most of the patents which
on judicial trial had been lost, had been so from mis-
takes in the framing of that document. The history
of the courts of law afforded, perhaps, no one head
of law about which there had been so much difference
of opinion amongst the judges. He was not contend•
ing that the patentee should not be obliged to give a
complete and accurate description of his invention, far
from it ; he saw the perfect justice and the necessity •
of this ; but when a man had made a discovery, and
was willing to come forward, and bona fide make the
discovery known, which was part of the condition •
of the grant, he had a right to ask, when he gave the
description of that discovery, " Are you satisfied
with it ?" " Is it complete ?" " Can you work
by it ?" and then, unless he had wilfully concealed
some part of the process by 'which the invention
could be better or cheaper made, he ought to be
secure of that protection which was to him the
beneficial part of the bargain which he had entered
into with the public; and not, after laying out vast
sums of money, be liable to have to muintain his
right before two or three successive Juries, and ulti-
mately, perhaps, after a balanced opinion of two
Juries and the Court, lose the benefit of his inven-
tion on some technical point, which might have been
foreseen, or which, perhaps, was really of no im-
portance. He thought it would be found that some
mode of ensuring the validity of the patent, when
the specification was complete, or, if incomplete, of
making the patentee acquainted with the fact, and
of allowing him before it was enrolled to make it
complete, might fairly be required. The history of
the cases showed that some of the most meritorious
scientific men, who had devoted their time and Oleic
fortune to the perfection of inventions—to whom it
was that we owed the unparalleled extension of our
commerce, the increase of our manufactures, and the
improvements in agriculture, those resources of that .
extraordinary prosperity and power to which this
country had arrived—had, for some technical in-
accuracy in the specification, nearly risked the
loss of their property. He need only refer to
the case of Bolton and 'Watt, whose patent was
all but lost, and that from some technical error in
the description—such as a description of a method
rather than a thing. It was a fast well known that
these eminent persons expended between 30,0001.
and 40,0001. in the defence of their patents, which
never would have been infringed if there had been
persons authorised and competent to examine the
specification on its enrolment, and to have said,
" You Lave taken a patent for a principle rather
than a thing, or for a whole machine, when yours
is only an improvement of a part." If that
power existed, the public would be as well and better
served than at present, and inventors would be saved
all the cost and the uncertainty as to their invention
and property. Whether that might be done by a
commission composed of scientific men and lawyers,
or whether it might be found impracticable, he knew
not; but he thought the state of the law, and more
particularly the state of opinion which existed among
scientific men, were at least good grounds for inquiry
and consideration, and he asked for nothing more.
There were other points on which he might say a
few words, one of which was the shortness of the
time allowed for the specification. The history of
nearly all great inventions showed, that the first
sketch of the machine, or process, was cumbrous and
complex; the operation of time was to simplify and
perfect it. A man made a discovery, he was is
hourly danger of being forstalled, or at least of losing
his right to 9btaiti a patent for it; for any publica-
tion of his secret, in any' way, before the patent was
rendered safe by passing the Great Seal, rendered
his right to a patent void, whether that publication
was made maliciously or accidentally, by a friend to
whom he might have communicated his invention,
or by a servant, whom he might have employed to
assist him in the experiments necessary to-perfect
it; and such caution on that account was thought
necessary, that Lord Eldon once declared from the
Bench, if he. were maturing an invention, and so-
liciting a patent, he would not intrust his. own
brother with the secret Until his patent was sealed.
The consequence of this was, that the moment the
ieda orsome discovery had occurred to a mart, he
was tempted to endeavour to secure it by a patent,
which he immediately applied for, and reobably ob-
tained ; but he was obliged to specify, often within
a time that was insufficient' for the due perfection of
his invention, and the result was, he specified for an
imperfect machine. The machine was improved,
and he was from time to time compelled to take out
a fresh patent for every successive improvement, and
at the same cost. It in fact often happened, that
an inventor had only the alternative of incurring the
expenseof taking out several patents for one inven-
tion, or of waiting before he took out his patent t ill
he had completed his. invention, at the hazard of los-
ing, through the carelessness or treachery of his
friends, or servants,, his right, to a patent at all.

Now he thought the law of France might be found
worthy of imitation on that head: there, though
the time for which a patent might be-granted was
fixed at 15 years, yet a patent for five years might
be taken out at a third of the expense of one for 15
years, which might be renewed from time to time,
with all the successiee improvements, for fifteen
years in the whole, and at the cost of one patent.
The only protection which an inventor had, pre-
viously to h:s application for a patent, was by a
caveat, which was nothing more than a request,
lodged at the offices of the Attorney or Solicitor-
General, that lie might have notice of all applica-
tions for patents for the same or the same sort of
invention, in order that he might claim a patent for
it, if found to be really the fist inventor. That was
the whole virtue of the caveat, which some persons
had erroneously imagined to he a sort of minor
patent, capable by its own operation of staying the
hands of all persons engaged in similar inventions.--
He believed there was a very general opinion, that
while a caveat afforded no certain protection, it wai
a sure means of raising opposition, and often of de-
feating. its own ends. So much for the specification,
in which the principal movements of the law would
be found to lie. He thought, if the inventor really
made a fair discovery of his invention, or described
it in a way prescribed to him, he aught to be gua-
ranteed his property, as much as the public
were guaranteed theirs. There was a difference
of opinion upon another point, namely, as to the
propriety of keeping the specification concealed
during the existence of the patent. According
to the present practice, the specification was open
to the public, and any one might obtain a copy of
it. It was said, and he thought truly, that that
operated injuriously towards the patentee in two
ways : in the first place, it operated against him by
serving as a guide to piracy at home, by en-
abling persons in this country, before the
ration of the patent, to obtain facilities for pirating
it ; and he believed it did operate in that way to
such a degree, that there were few patents which
had not been infringed very extensively. In the
next place, it enabled persons to carry the inven-
tion abroad, wbeie, of course, the patent article was
made, the foreign market shut against the real in-
ventor, and the undue benefit given to foreigners, of
having the free use of the invention 11 years before
the patentee's countrymen could enjoy the same ad-
vantage. The only reasons in favour of the publi-
cation of the specification were, firs, that the public
should judge if the thing had been truly described ;
next, that a man might see for what a patent had
already been obtained, that he might not waste his
titre in perfecting a similar invention. As to the
first objection, it would be greatly removed by the
adoption of a proposition he had already made—
namely, that means should he taken to ascertain the
accuracy of the description before it was enrolled.—
As to the second, which had bees urged by Lord
Eldon, he was not sure that there was any perfectly
satisfactory answer to it ; but it had been said that
a description, far short of a minute specification,
would be publication enough, if made in the title of
the patent, to inform ingenious men of the nature of
the inventions already protected by patents. The
question, however, involved a balance of evils, but
it was obvious that the point was one which de-
served consideration. In France'the specification might
be concealed on special application; and if it was
necessary to inspect it, in a case where a patent had
been infringed, it was referred to persons to decide,
hut who were not at liberty to dissolve its nature.
How far that might be thought advisable in this
country, lie conceived no one could decide without
a detailed consideration of the point, and taking the
opinion of those who at once interested in, and
conversant with, the sub!ect. He hoped he had
stated enough to induce the House to comply with
his motion, that a Committee should be appointed
to inquire and report on the present state and ope-
ration of the laws relating to granting letters patent
for inventions.
Mr. D. GILBERT begged leave to second the
motion.

Mr. PEEL agreed with his Hon. Friend that
the subject was one of great difficulty, and that re-
quired cautious investigation. It was one, too, of
paramount importance in relation to the manufac-
turing interests of the country, and therefore one
to which there could he no objection of referring to
a Committee. He thought, however, that care
should he taken to prevent the appointment of a
Committee being considered as sanctioning an erro-
neous impression, which was, unfortunately, very
general—that it was expedient to facilitate the
taking out of patents for inventions. This was a
great error. He was convinced that a too great
facility on the obtaning of patents would actually
t?efeat the end intended by them, and thereby prove
mischievous to the mechanical and manufacturing
interests of the country. No man who was ac-
quainted with Birmingham and Manchester, where
mechanical ingenuity was to he seen, would doubt
his opinion.
Sir C. WETHERELL would have no objection '
to the appointment of a Committee, for the purpose
of inquiring into the means of protecting patentees,
but would not consent either that patents should be
obtained otherwise than as at present—from the
Crown,—or that the preliminary public specification
of the nature of the invention or improvement should
be dispensed with. With respect to what had fallen
from the Hon. Mover for the Committee, as to the
hardship of exposing grantees to the trouble and ex-
pense of defending their patentee rights in a court of
law, in the case of any infringement on those rights,
be must say that he considered this defence to be the
just price of their monopoly. One person obtains a
patent from the Crown,far what is considered to be
an invention ; and another, he alleges, has invaded
his granted rights. How, in the first place, is his
faith in !he originality of his invention to be tested,
hut by his readiness to prove it in a court of law ?
And how, in the next place, can it be known that
his patentee rights have been inv ded, but by the
decision of a competent jury ?
Mr. WARBURTON contended that there were
many defects in the existing law which it would be
very easy for a Committee to remedy.
Sir S. MORLAND was one who many years ago
had brought the subject before Parliament, and who
expected beneficial consequences from the proposed
Committee.

Mr. MARERLY doubted very much whether
the presen; law of patents was productive of any
public advantage—whether, in fact, it did not throw
obstacles in the way of.mechanical ingenuity.
After a few words in explanation from Mr. LEN-
NARD, the motion for a committee was agreed to.
On the motion of Lord F. L. GowER, a select
committee was appointed on " such of the Irish mis-
cellaneous estimates as were voted in Committee of
Supply on the 3.1 of April."
Sir G. COCKBURN moved for leave to bring
in a Bill to provide for the better management of
the affairs of Greenwich Hospital. His object was
to ensure an efficient, unexpensive, and responsible
government of that institution.
After a few words from Sir J. IORKE, Lord
LOWTHER, Mr. MABERLY, and Alderman WOOD,
leave was given to bring in a Bill to provide for
the better management of the affairs of Greenwich
Hospital.
The House then went into Committee on the
Assessed Taxes Composition Act.
In answer to a question from an Hon. MEMBER,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
stated that it was his intention to propose a con-
solidation of those laws next session.

Mr. MABERLY said that many of the regula-
tions in the present Bill were vexatious and unne-
cessary, and he trusted they would be removed by
the measure to be introduced by Government next
session.

A Resolution was then agreed to for r -ntinuing
the present Bill for a further term.
- The House resumed, the report was hrGight up,
and ordered to be received to-morrow (this day).
The House went into Committee on the Seisins'
Registration (Scotland) Bill.
• The House having resumed, the Report was re-

NORTE! LEVEL AND PORTSAND.

WE, the undersigned, being five of the
Commissioners fur putting into execution an Act
passed in the 27th year of King George the Second, and
Two several other Acts passed in the 11th and 36th years
of King George the Third, amending the same, for the
more effectual Draining anti Preserving the said North
Level, and divers Lands adjoining thereto, in the Manor
of Crowland, do hereby appoint a Special Meeting of the
said Commissioners, to be holden at the Duke's Head
Inn, in Thorney, iu the County of Cambridge, on FRIDAY,
the 24th day of April next, at 12 o'clock at noon, for the
purpose of considering and discussing the provisions of a
Bill now before Parliament, for altering, amending, and en-
larging the powers of an Act of Parliament passed in the
Sth year of his present Majesty's reign, for improving the
Outfall of the River Nene, and the Drainage of the Lands
discharging their Waters by the Wishech River.
Dated this 28th day of March. 1829.
TYCHO WING,
JOS. BEAKLEY,
STEIN. SHARMAN.
WM. SLATOR,
H. J. ELLMAN.