The New York herald., 1850-12-26
The Patent Laws-The Proposed Amend
mont


OF Saturday, the l4th inst.
The Patent Laws-The Proposed Amend
ment
Among the unfinished business of last session,
which is now engaging the attention of Congress,
is bill amending the patent laws of the United
States, which certainly need amendment, as every
one, especially if be be a patentee, knows by sad
experience. 1t is the opinion of nine-tenths of the
community that our present system is imperfect,
that too much power is placed in the hands of
the Commissioner, and that if no fraud or corrup-
ton is practsed in the granting or renewal of
patents, door is open for both. We do not say
that cry Commissioner Of Patents who has ever
held office has been guilty Of conducting the bus-
ness of his department in unfair manner; but
we do say that ss the law stands, they are liable
TO the imputaon of ruling and deciding, in patent
cases, not according to justice or equity not with
the determination 10 do right, but through motives
anything but creditable. This imputation, or
rather the cause which produces it, should be re-
moved We should like to see those whose duty
tits TO decide upon such important business placed
in position that lhe breath even of suspicion could
not reach them. This cannot be the case under
the present patent laws, as every one acquainted
with the subject is aware. If twere, we would
not being conducted in proper and equitable man.
ner
Great care must be taken, however, that in
amending the patent laws, TO speak paradox.
ieally. we do not amend them for the
worse-that in endeavoring to remedy an evil we
do not commit a greater one. Legislators are
liable 10 do SO, as the piles Of statutes in every
State library will testify. The evils complained Of
should be carefully investigated and ascertained;
and when they are made apparent, they should be
corrected, leaving the rest Of the system-knownt to
be good-untouched and unimpaired. We do not
zee that the bill now before Congress is Of cha
racter TO remedy all the evils which have been
complained Of, for so many years, in connection
with the patent laws. We like some of its features
but there are others which we do not agree to- We
like, for instance, that portion of it which takes
away from the Commissioner the absolute power
which he possesses over patents and patentees.
In the infancy Of our republic, when the patent
business was Of but small account, the present sys
TEN was, perhaps, good enough. Blu, the case is
very different now, when a natien of nearly
thirty millions Of people. In this respect we 90
farther than the proposed bill; would like TO see
aCour of fPateats organized, TO be presided over by
two or three judges-certainly more than one, be-
cause many Of the objections which apply TO the
present system would also be applicable to the
proposed one, IL there were but one-and these
judges should be selected from among the best
and soundtst legal men in the country. Our
Commissioner Of Patents should be a lawyer
What do mechanics or scientific men know about
Law, as a general thing And il is the business Of
the Commissioner Of Patents, who is always one
or the other, to interpret and pronounce upon laws
az important as any on our statute book. There
other features Of the proposed amendment that we
dislike and cannot perceive the necessity Of intro
ducng. We allude 20 one particularly, which, on
a second reading Of the bill, we think decidedly
wrong, because il is against all statute and common
law. # is the provision requiring that, when
pateniee institutes a suit against a person who
pirates on his invention, the pirate shall have the
privilege, by scs facias Of compelling the inventor
10 prove the validity Of his PATENT and until that Is
done, the patentee's proceedings shall be stayed
We do not see the object Of this, except il be to
protect the pirate. Under the present system, IL
would be absurd for an inventor TO institute pro-
ceedings against a person for infringing on his
patent, unless he knew that his rights were indis
putablej but II they were not valid, the defendant
has the privilege and right Of showing II, and, II he
can do so, he gains the suit II a man commences
an action Of ejectment against another the defend.
ant has the privilege, IL he can do go, Of showing
that the plaintiff . title to the property is unsound
Let him prove this, the action fails and he will get
a verdict II is the same with patents In all
cases the defendant has the liberty Of showing that
the patent is illegal, or void from some other
cause. In the one case, IL would be unjust
and improper TO allow the defendant to
turn round, stay the plaintiffs proceedings, and
commence an action against the plaintiff which
might last for hveiyears and, in the meantime,
Joy the rents Of the property. To allow him such
privilege, would be to commit gross injustice on
the real owner In the other, IL would be equally
unjust to allow a man, who is sued for infringing
patent, the privilege Of instituting proceedings
against the patentee, which, like the other, might
last for FIVE ten years. the infringer in the mean
time, feathering his nest by his piracy. In both
cases, title is in issue, and IL the defendant can
show the ttle to be bad, II is ell the defence he
needs.
Now, when we amend our laws, let us amend
them for the better, and not for the worse. This
feature Of the proposed amendment is absurd on it's
face and members Of Congress are greater fools
than we take them to be, il they sanction il.
Thousands Of persons are interested, and many
millions Of dollars sre1nvoIved, in the granting and
reissuipg Of patents. Let us have Court OF Pa
tents, and Yet the old and good common Law prac-
tice prevaili in litigation concerning them. Let the
pstentee not be dsahed Of his rights, or infingers
sncourged in their piracy.