The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-01-12


was inconsistent therefore, with the intention of the act,
that the assignments should be extended with the extern
sion OF patent
This bill proposed to give 10 the assgnees the benefit of
tue extension according TO their interest therein to
use the expression of the bill which precisely
me expression OF the act of 1896. This was precisely
me plraseoogy iron which that difficult question
when occupied The Supreme Court for three weeks be-
| fore it could be decided
| He believed ths bill went further II proposed not
only 10 extend the interest of the assgnees but 10 make
new contract Why not leave the parties to make their
own contracts If they not able to make acontract
for themselves upon what principle that the SEN
ate called upon the circuit court to do it for them Here
they encountered another difficulty, for extremely
doubtful whether the circuit would take upon them
1t was his opinion, therefore, that the bill should be
adapted to the act of 1886, stated and determined by
the Supreme Court The bill should extend the patent
for the benefit OF those representing the inventor Ii
should. however protect the of the machinery Tor
the benefit OF those who may have already constructed and
commenced its use He who had gone to the expense of
procuring the machinery would otherwise be subjected to
loss, as 1t was OF value He would therefore, suggest to
the honorable chairman OF the committee to modify the
bill as to have the extension nure TO the benefit of the
representatives OF the original inventor, with the simple
qualification OF protecting those who were using the
machinery as they would be protected under the inter-
probation given to the general law of 1896. If the
tor would so modify the BILL he had no objection to it,
Mr.. DAVIS OF Massachusetts, considered the bill as
not only open TO the objections stated by the gentleman
from Vermont Mr.. Phelps but to another of per-
haps still more grave character II proposed not only
to renew the patent without the qualification which had
been suggested, but proposed to authorize speci
hcaon and in that specification to all subse
quen inventions made by the original patenee not only
covering that which it proposed to renew, but all i'm
provements subsequently made by him Instead OF abb
ding by their specification to provide for that purpose,
specification was proposed that covered ground as
il seemed to him, which nobody could comprehend
what the object of it There nothing beforeth
Senate which went to show for what purpose they need
| ed provision of that sort.
Without dwelling upon that point, he would recognise
all the difficulties stated by the gentleman from Vermont
In Mr. IppIin narln thnau n bod
been passed few years containing provisions
what similar 10 these, directing equitable adjustments be-
tween the assignees and the inventor. This would be
necessarily source OF continual legal contention be-
tween the parties. Whether the court could take juris-
dcton IN such not matter for him to settle;
but he would ask what sort of employment it would be
for the court 10 inquire into of tins kind and hear
evidence upon hemin other words, to hear their case
and MAKE the bargain for them'
He wascontent and satisfied with the principle laid down
by the senator from Vermont The question having fire.
queny asen he had bestowed some attention upon the
interests of assgnees in matters of this sort seemed to
him reasonable that those who purchased the
chine should he protected for all time in the OF it, and
not be obliged to purchase again; but il the Senate
should go far to protect all persons those possess
that the operation of would be injurious 1t part
of their purpose TO egisate for those holding territorial
rights He would therefore, without troubling the SEN
ate, propose to strike out all after the word patent" in
the 18th line and TO insert the following
"Prosidd. That all persons who ENJOY the lawful
use of the machines by purchase or otherwise shall te
protected in that enjoyment"
Mr.. PHELPS suggested TO substitute the word use'
for repayment" which modification was accepted by
Mr. DAVIS.
| Mr. WESTCOTT said the terms of the amendment
offered nulied the whole bill, and rendered it worth
less to the heirs of the inventor The patent has
pred long since. Everybody who is using it now is
using il lawfully, in the words of the amendment. and
all assignees and others it without compensa
ton. He hoped the amendment would not be adopted
All the arguments here about the rights and equities of
assignees repugnant to the law as settled by the
Supreme Court As the machine who
had constructed under license of the inventor that
would be case in which, if the patentee his heirs
the court had the power to restrain him and compel him
to do equity, and take just compensation
| Mr.. PHELPS mean to cover every case where the
person is using the machine now. whether he has pur
chased the right or has obtained account of the
pation Of the patent wish to protect every in the
lawful use OF the machine.
| Mr.. WESTCOTT. ! understand it very well What
insist upon is that the principle of the law laid down
in the decision of the Supreme Court should be adhered
TO- or the remedy afforded by which more equitable
principle can be made to control The rights and equ
ties of each depend upon the circumstances
that exist in each The judge direct auditors to take
evidence and make report OF the circumstances and the
mode prescribed is legal arbitration merely No general
rule be adopted to the rights of asssnees, without
doing in justice.
| Mr., BALDWIN remarked that there was another
amendment which he would wish to have made as the
amendment of the gentleman from Vermont would still
leave room Tor great injustice to those who had put this
invention in operation since the expiration of the patent
|
they had availed themselves of the right to the
invention which the whole community possessed after the
expiration of the patent. Ii the bill to pass with an
amendment proposed by the senator from Massachu
sets, Mr. DAVIS, it would grant the exclusive right
the original patentee to prevent their enjoyment of the
machines which they had built at great expense He did
not therefore consider the amendment suggested by the
honorable senator from Massachusetts going quite far
enough. II protected those who in the
of the machine, in the enjoyment of that use but
to do them justice, it should not only protect those
who in the of the machine, but their as
sgnees should also be protected in its use This patent
expired in lSi3; Since that time the right to put up these
expensive machines had been common Ia all the people
of the United States. The public had paid for this right
in the exclusive privilege which had been granted for the
period OF fourteen years to the patenee That time hav
ing expired, every one who felt interest in doing
was invited by the government to avail himself of this
invention, which hal now become public property
Would II not then, he asked do great injustice II we
were SIMPLY to give to the person who had thus expend
ed hs money upon the erection OF these machines tie
The personal enjoyment preventing HIM from selling or
dsposing OF IT In any way Should they not have the
power OF making their right to assignees in like
manner as originays
He was utterly opposed to continuing the exclusive
use OF the machine 10 the paentee after it had become
common, without giving full and complete protection to
all existing rights, and giving power of assignment to
possessos whether they erected their machines in pur
suaDce OF an original contract with the patentee subse
quen 10 the expiration OF his interest, in consequence
vi The common right to the invention lie then moved
to amend the amendment by adding the words, land
| their assgnees." .f-
The question being taken upon the amendment TO the
amendment II was agreed 10, and the amendment by Mr.
DAVIS, as amended, was then adopted
| MIR: WESTCOFT, The adoption of this amendment
nules the bull IL - not worth fig to the heirs of the in
ven'or Ii is only to benefit those who are using the