The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-02-16
THE UNION.

benefit OF the act 10 the assignees OF MIR Anderson which
Mr.. WESTCOTT thought this was a very meritorious
case-as much any that had been present
ed TO Congress; but he must vote against the bill II me
mode proposed by the senator from Connecticut should be
adopted and upon the principle that he thought the ado
ton of the amendment would render The entirely use
less 10 those for whose benefit IT was intended. He had
moved, the other day, TO lay bill upon the table IN con-
sequence of similar amendment having been adopted,
and he would now that this bill be laid upon the
table
Mr.. DAVIS of Massachusetts, asked the senator to
Withdraw the motion.
MIR. WESTCOrT declined.
The question being then taken upon the motion to lay
upon the table, il decided in the negative.
Mr. WESTCOTT said he felt bound to repeat, in some
measure tie arguments which he had urged the other
day. If the Senate were TO adopt this as prncple-n
the amendment of the senator from Connecticut was TO
be adopted he wished to have 1t inserted in all cases. so
that it might be understood that every bill OF like char
the committee. call the attention of the Senate to the
decisions of the Supreme Court upon this subject and 10
what they lay down the true prncpein relation to
the rights of assgnees and the rights of the original pat
enees upon the renewal and extension OF patent.
Mr. BERRIEN Will the senator state precisely
the effect of this amendment in order that his argument
may be understood
Mr. WESTCOTT said the amendment was to make the
renewal and the extension of this patent lnure 10 the
benefit of all the assgnees, persons who were now
using and enjoying that patent.
Mr. BALDWIN Not at all II was merely to pro-
ect the persons who in the lawful enjoyment
Of the thing patented, so that they might have nowith-
the specific thing which they now lawfully ENJOY, and
which they would enjoy if this bill did not pass The
patent had already expired. The use -
Mr.. WESTCOTT | did not yield the floor, Mr..
President about to say that the person who re-
ceves assignment of patent has no property IN the
patent under that assignment The supreme Court o.
common If under the section OF the act OF 1886,
any other law, the patent is renewed or extended the
assignee of the previous right which has expired is not
entitled to the benefit OF such renewal or extension lie
only purchases and pays for the right to use It with the
patentee, while the original patent IS IN force. II
is true the contract may give HIM rlsh IT. Inc
uator the assignee who purchases OF the inventor
at perhaps tenth of what worth. The argument
urged by the other side is, that the moment the patent
pires, he has right to have the of it, So too, the
world has right to use it. But sir, protest against
the principle that these patents 10 be extended for the
benefit of specializing assgnees The inventor should
be Temuneaed and not the purchasers who buy for the
purposes of speculation Sir, if the contract which they
make when they purchase the patent is that they shall
and proper that they should be entitled to it. But if the
contract is not SUCH what justice is there in Congress
making new contract between the inventor and the
person who purchases from him ?
Sir, this thing operates unequay also II operates in
some sections of the country to permit the patent 10
be in general use, while in other sections is not
There many patents where assignments have been
made of districts counties, and States, to different ndi
vduals; and this law secures to those the rights
under the extended patent There others in the new
States where the patentee may charge his price, pro-
hbit the entire of it in that section of the country
But sir, regard this amendment and the policy which
dictates it, as reproo upon the Supreme Court OF the
United States for their decision IN series OF cases IN
which they maintain the policy, the sound and wise
principle that these extensions ought not to be tor The
benefit of the assgnees, unless their contract stipua
ted when that purchase made, or unless 1t was SO
provided previously by general law.
Mr. UNDERWOOD desired TO be informed whether he
understood the operation OF the bill! He desired to know
whether person who using this er-spout
his mill would be compelled TO pay again for his patent
or stop his ml' Would that be the effect of the bill if
the amendment dld not prevail
Mr.. WESrCOTT said it would.
MIR. DAVIS of Massachusetts thought the senator
from Florida was aborng under misapprehenson.
This renewal Of patent for spout, intended as
| an Improvement in mill power This individual, for
causes explained in the report being poor man, hav
ing made what estimated to be valuable invention,
not able TO bring 1t into because OF his poverty
and in consequence of his i'll health he not able to
make application here quite enough to obtain re-
ncwal at the Patent Office He applied. however. few
days before the pltent had eypred but there was not
time enough left to give the notice required by law and
therefore he did not obtain the renewal Under these
circumstances. he had here with the certificate of
the Patent Office in his favor, stating that this is vau
able invention and he satisfies the committee beyond all
doubt that he has not been properly rewarded for his IN
genuty He Cor rather his heirs, for he is dead having
died insolvent) now asks for renewal. The fac,
was, he believed there was no assignment IN the case
not one. But what was the design OF the provision
which was introduced there? 1t simply this that if
any person bought of him of these water spous, he
should be protected assignee in the of il; and if
any man had constructed one that he should be pro-
ent had out, the invention became public property;
and, in his Judgment they could not with propriety
quire man, when he had lawfully constructed ma
chine, to pay for the patent after it had run ont
| Mr.. UNDERWOOD read the following proviso con :
tanned in the blI provided that all persons now en-.
joying the lawful use OF such spout may continue
to use the same, notwithstanding the provisions of
this act" The amendment by the gentleman from Con-
nectcu proposed to insert the wOn "assgnees" simply.
There was the difficulty He willing to renew this
patent, and to allow the heirs of the paentee-nasmuch
as he had not received sufficient reward for his inge
nuity-to make sales of the patent right hereafter He
was willing to allow those who had heretofore pur-
chased the right to this patent without paying any
further to these heirs; but he willing to allow those
whe had purchased the right OF using this patent and OF
selling it to persons in counties districts, to go and
still make Sales by the renewal of this right their
hands Mr.. U. afraid that the insertion of the word
assgnees" would be renewing the power in the hands
OF those who held country rights TO go on selling patents
as before.
Mr.. DAVIS of Massachusetts Mr. President, all
say is that it is the precise object of the committee
in the BILL protect persons in exactly the rights the
senator flom Kentucky MR. UNDEawooDl desires 1t
is protect those assignees who have bought and TO
prevent their being taxed again for the of the
chine, and such persons they may sell their machine
to- These all the persons If it covers anything
more, it goes beyond the meaning and intention of the
committee and so far | concerned, did intend,
and think it right that if, after the expiration of this pat
ent any of these machines constructed before the
renewal OF the patent they lawfully constructed,
and after the renewal of the patent it would be lawful
that any person who may have constructed machine
under these circumstances, shonld have the use OF It,
The provso is intended to cover the of these two
descriptions of machinery, and nothing else nothing else
is intended to be covered by the word assignee" If
the senators from Kentucky and Connecticut will only
preserve these principles, they may ameni the bill
my fGEp|vfNcoN IT,: A., =; e. a..., -, r. A.,