The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-02-25

pentipe, paints and other materials and expenses;''
but are explained by the fact that he Undoubtedly
| disbursed nine hundred dollars while he was thus
| engaged He charges also for time while thus
| employed five hundred dollars, which he puts upon
the ground that Immediately afterw be entered
1 into the service of the Eagle India-rubber Com :
pany, at an annual salary of one thousand dollars
Ihls arose do doubt from the undue expectations of
that company, and did not last He had previously
abored for two dollars per day; and subsequently,
as he testities, was employed by Goodyear at an
| annual salary of five six hundred dollars
though. by contract among the exhibits, he was
at one time to have eight hundred dollars. In adj
dtlon to this, it is evident from the statement that
the nine hundred dollars discussed at Eas'on must
| have betrayed his personal and other expenses
| such as are usually borne out of mans wages
U p to this period he had accumulated put little,
his earnings had been nearly consumed IN his sup
port, and this charge OF five hundred dollars ougnt
in Justice to be reduced TO such sum as he could
reasonably be expected to have saved In another
pursuit in that time How much the balance
should be increased cannot be ascertalned; 1t is
clear, however, that it is not large as it should
be-
It will be observed that his time and his expenses
are charged in the account, and that balance re-
mains after remunerating him for both, leaving
Us only to inquire whether that balance is sufficient
| to compensate him for his 'ingen,ity.'' Before
entering upon this, it is proper notice position
| taken by the opponents, VINO argue that by max
ing deliberate sale of his invention the petitioner
has set his own valuation upon it; and having re-
ceived the price, as he comedies he should not be
permitted to ask for more. There is great force
in this, especially in those where an inventor
| has made deliberate understanding sale; but it
should be applied with caution where he has been
constrained by poverty to make a sacrifice, or
where he has acted in ignorance of the merit of his
discovery, and has sold for trie what has proved
OF great value to the public In either instance, 1t
seems that he ought TO be entitled to the benefit OF
this proceeding. Both of these considerations, it
! n a satisfied
as to that. The whole transaction shows that Hay
ward set no trifng estimate upon his discovery.
The price he received does not indicate that any
advantage was taken of his need, and he was re-
ceiving annual salary of $500 year from
Goodyear at the time. The merits of the inven
ton will be -adverted to in another place.
1t is insisted, also, that nothing more is implied
IN the phrase 'singenuity' than time; and that
| where the inventor has received adequate COM
pensation for that and his labor, his ingenuity has
been rewarded. In confirmation of this, authentic
assurances were given that the former board for
extending patents had never allowed any thing for
ingenuity over and above time. Il would have
been to the point had assurance been
given that they had ever In fact disallowed such
an item, and denied a renewal, upon the ground
| that the applicant had been remunerated for his
time and expenses. The of the word 'singe-
nuity in the act, in addition to the words time
and expense, is inconsistent with this objection; II
| must be presumed to mean something more.
| Neither ID the view thus taken by the opponents
compatible with the provision for ascertainlng the
value of the invention to the public is said that
the object of this merely to show that it of
some value; otherwise the Commissioner would not
| be authorized to proceed The act however, calls
for the ascertained value of the invention, f" which
would seem, therefore, to be required for another
purpose. Looking at the expressions OF the statute,
and at the practice upon these applications, am
convinced that two elements to be considered
in determining the question of remuneration for
Ingenuity. One of these must be inventive genius.
! 1t would be wholly unreasonable 10 pay for the
number of years that an uneducated plodder might
waste in perfecting continuance; and to measure
the compensation of man who, by the exercise Of
uncommon ingenuity and skill, had produced the
same result, by the few days it had cost him.
Where the invention displays great talent, there
fore, and is evidently the product of extraordnary
capacity, it should receive, if otherwise deserving,
some corresponding remuneration, and should be
embraced in the estimate The other is the degree
of utility possessed by the invention. Judging
from the language of the statute, il would seem
that the Legislature intended to acquesce In the
widely expressed sentiment that the conrivers of
eminently beneficial mechanisms devices,
like the cotton gn the steam engine, and the cleo
trio telegraph entitled to something more than
days wages and the reimbursement of their ex-
penses. believe it was designed that they should
be literally rewarded somewhat in proportion to
the debt which humanity owes them, and as an
encouragem to such benefactors.
The question then arises, do either of these con-
siderations apply in the present case? In the first
place, has MIR. Hayward displayed any such extra
ordinary ingenuity in this invention entities
such ingenuity called into exercise, while he
was engaged In his long course of experiments for
the purpose OF maturing his device There is not
particle OF evidence respecting it, however; it is
not to be discovered by Inspections it ght be
in machines. In order to give him the benefit
OF having displayed the ingenuity that the law con-
templates, it must be wholly presumed; and with
out proof of it do not feel at liberty to infer it.
Experiments fer the same purpose were at the time
constantly making all sides, and he could not
be said to have advanced more than step beyond
others / cannot, therefore, deem him entitled to
any unusual enolument on this ground.
As to the question whether the value of Mr.
Hayward's invention entities him to reward 80
much larger than he has received have had more
doubts. 1t is said to be worth so 900 by itself;
8 100000 in conjunction with other patents By
this do not understand that it is worth SO much
means of levying contribution, but that the |
process is worth so much when employed in aid of
other patented processes. But have the public de
rived SO large an advantage from it? Looking at
the examiners report, and at the whole testimony
have come to the conclusion that it was the in
vention OF yulcanising India-rubber patented by |!
Goodyear that created this new branch of manufac
ture, and caused this wonderful activity in the mar.
ke for goods of this material. 1t is true GOODYEAR
may ind it advantageous to call Hayward's inven-
ton to mis- aid; it may be or less essential to the
success OF his process. Ii is upon this point have
laDored: and while incline to the opinion thatthe
invention of Hayward has been public benefit the
estimate have formed of it is not high that can
grant the petition upon the strength of it, The |
"appear the full and entire satisfaction, of the
Commissioner. He must also have ssa due regar I'd |
to the public interest," in making this determine.
ton The community have already contributed
immense sums to the owners of these patents and
the question is whether they shall continue to
do so on this. can only say that must take
very different view of the case before can be in
duced to grant the exclusive interest for seven wears
longer on this invention, which would necessarily
subject the public to further tax almost beyond
estimation There is no other alternative; the pa
tent must be extended for that PERIOD or not at all
The case would be different, if, as in England it
was subject of discretion how long term to |
give.
This suggests another inquiry. Admitting that
the applicant is every other ground entitled to
have his prayer complied with and especially that
he has never received suitable remuneration,
ought he not to be denied upon the ground that the
public have paid abundantly for his Improvement?
OF this fact there can be no doubt. 1t would seem
as if both of the parties should be taken into con-
sideration; that the inquiry should be not merely
how much has the inventor received, but how
much have the public contributed? 1t may be
held that the community afford to be and ought
to be generous an liberal towards its benefactors,
and cheerfully submit to double tax for the sake
of remunerating those who have bestowed great ad-
vantages upon It. That is not an easy position to
maintain. Admitting it to be sound, however,
there is danger growing out of it to be