Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-01-10

he constitution or the patent laws, but IN TN, |
want OF knowledge among The people, aud
could only he corrected by its diffusion. In
restricting the patcBiec Ia the recovery at
mere judicial damages, Mr.. w. continued.
justice was not done to him. He cannot sur
Tor all his right at once, because tue violations
by which he is deprived of il a,- numerous.
Suppose you were 10 compel a man, in suing
fur Land, Ia for il acre by acre-he might
get his land, indeed, but he would be ruined
by the process of recovery. 1t was because
the particular injury u the case Ut the viola
ton of II patent right was small aud the ex-
Pense of redressing it great, that the provision
vf this bill Appeared To be expedient A re-
dress OF the actual injury was not sufficient in
this class OF cases-if the penalty for the vo
'a''on was not sufficient tn act IN terr0rent, IL
was nothing. Do not all penal statutes, Mr..
w. asked, go on the ground, that damages
are not only LEI be given TO indemnify suf
ierer IN particular case, but tn such an
amount as To deter others from doing the
like The argument of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, besides, went too far. If the
damages are awarded AT five hundred dollars,
as the law now stands, costs are allowed /;
whilst, if the damages be but ten dollars, they
are net allowed. What justice was there in
this Where an action is brought 10 recover
provement in mac hinrry, the common rule is,
to settle the amount of damages at the sale
price of the article and one of the Injurious
consequences to defendants themselves, from
the present state of the law, is, that the Jurirs
give as much damages as will carry the costs.
He could assure the gentleman from Penn
syivania, whatever might be said in other parts
OF the country, there was no right which an
independent jury of the part of the count nv
IN which he resided would protect with more
certainty or vigilance, than the patent right
In clear case where the intention to deprive
the inventor Of The brneiit of his patent was
obvious, the jury would, in almost any case,
give damages to the full amount of Eve hun
dred dollars. This bill, therefore, would, in
this respect, be beneficial to the defendants
themselves. On the part of patentees, there
were so many things to be proved-fur in
stance that the invention is new, that il is use
inl, that the specification is accurate, Sc
much nicely was required, as TO throw suff-
cient obstacles in his way. The right of the
patentee, Mr.. w. said, was one which the
Constitution of the United States had author
ised and enjoned upon Congress to protect
the farty In ured has no security or resort
elsewhere, but to the courts of the United
States and il it was reasonable that in such
case he should b. entitled to recover costs
where the damages amount TO one hundred
dollars, then this bill ought TO pass it not, it
ought not To pass.
Mr.. Buchanan, in reply. observed, that no
one could be more disposed To- protect the
Just rights of patentees than he was nor could
any person concur more heartily than he did
in the sentiments of the honorable gentleman
from Massachusetts, respecting the property
which an inventor has in that which is the
product of his own genius: yet, he held i, TO
be principle i'll legislation - lille guarding
the rights ofone individual not to forget or to
impair those of the rest of the community
A wise legislator was bound to give equal pro-
lection Ia the tights of all. Ever since the
passage ofihe Patent Law under the consti-
tuition the courts had been open to patentees
and the burden of proof had always been
cast ON the violator of his patent. He must
prove that his act was no violation of the
patent, or that the patent was in itself
mvdlid<-This operated, at least in that
part of the Union which he had the
honor to represent, as a great hardship /;
yet, 1t had been cheerfully submitted to, and
the mere production of the patent was allow
ed to he presumptive e, idence in favor of the
Patenfee. But the law went farther: it not
only threw the burden of proof on the alleged
vloiator, but ii iripled all damages against
HIM And now il was proposed To go farther
still, and TO allow costs in the bargain, wher-
ever these damages should when trIpled,
amount to s 100. Had he rightly heard and
understood the gentleman from MassachII-
sets Did he say that, in that part of the u
Mon, jury would always give verdict Of
5 800 IL such were the fact, he did not W on
der that the voice Of the community was ne
yer heard against the provisions of the law
Who would not rather pay s 10 than run the
Of f,.h a. trip 4,
costs No wonder there was deep silence
The act, as amended by this bill, placed the
community at the mercy of pateRtees. To
oblige man to go 9 or 800 miles to court,
then oblIse him to prove the patent false, and
IT he Fails, to make him pay triple damages,
and costs OF suit, is TO place an array of OBJ
stscie5 in the way that must, in most cases,
efiectuaI'y prevent the validity Of patents
from being ever contested. Such ought not
to be the practical operation OF law on this
subject. If the law is left as it now stands,
will the pateDtee suffer any injury? None
at all Suppose his patent is good and va
lid one, u suppose he has To- sue in order to es-
tablish that fact, will not such suit be, in ef-
feet, benefit? Can he not thencefor,h tx
hiblt with his patent the verdict that has con-
frmed IT F? But if this bill becomes law, ii
will go furth throughout the country TO let
loose unprincipled pretenders to prowl upon
the community. He was very sorry il had
been his lot To differ in opinion from the no.
norable member from Massachusetts, for
whose opinions 20 man cherished more
profound respect but he had been reluctant
~ urged by a sense of duty to oppose bill
which he conceived To- he fraught with injury
Mr.. Clarke Of N. Y then moved
D." That the bill, with the amendment, be
committed 10 the Committee on the Judiciary,
with Instructions to inquire into the expedien-
cy ofrepealing so much of the law upon the