New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-11-06
THE LAW OF PATENTS.

IR. CHARLES READE's VIEWS Observation-Disclosures
NOT MoNoPOLIEs AND NOT INIMICAL TO COPY
Rights.
TO the Editor or The Tribune.
SIR: AS friend to International Copyright,
believing justice and Its eXpedency, much regret
the tone tenor aud averments OF Mr. Charles Roades
letter published IN THE Tribune OF Sept That letter
was less vndicatiou of copyright than datlfbe
against the law OF patents for Inventions and whatever
assas the latter strikes at the former. Patents for in
ventious and copyrights for books had common origin
and they must stand or fall together.
Mr. Resde says that patent is kind OF mild Inonop
DIV in species or sub-speees OF ideas" In fact it is
nothing OF The kind III lac will turn TO the treatise by
George TcAnor Curtis the Law OF Patents lac will find
II stated that patent is not monopoly in tie legal
definition Of the aud that ideas cannot be
patented. do not know what subdea " Is, but am
certain that has never been referred to IN any act OF
Congress or Of Parliament concerning patents or copy
rights Mr. Reade further says that tie patent ON ne"
substances discovered imported is monstrous, I'M
constitutional cOnsnant OF just liberty, and VIII he aDOi-
ished whenever legislation rises to science" New sub
stances 80 termed. are Of two kinds, either natural
substances newly discovered or ARTIFICIAL substances
newly PRODUCED There Is not patent law IN the world
that grants patent the former and there is not
rasuiSt who can show that the latter ough 10 be
terted on the ground any other new ana us ma
improvements Mr. Reade asserts that ian article thai
nirl he patented and not is worth 90 per cent OF the
49, aV, 10 ns,e, ted The tguth j. tlat an article
that might he patented sn0t" in 80 QUITO 100
IL not worth cent either 10 TIE inventor or 10 te pun
lie for the simple reason that article, IN order 10 t
pai-ntabe Tvs thing that has not been before
made.
liz regard 10 manufactures, Mr. Reade says ITO
pirate paented article yuu must employ the same KIM
OF constructive skill the patcntec ~ his paid construct
Ors employ. aud then yOu only mimic but 1" pne an
aut nor and steal identical work. none Of an anihOs
skill or labor our d Mr.. Eeade seems "a forget thai
II thing 10 invent and luite another th- 10 manu-
fsciure. lust u is thing 10 wrie boOa ana an
other lhlrg 10 PRINT it. When Mr. koadc speaks Of
patents the mere or atmcs 81 arbitrary prcrog9,
tive" he ignores She accepted principles or ethics as wei
- uf Independence and shows that lie has forgotten
that patent for nv nuns lave ID many Instance
been gtsnted under the common law. Mr. Rotdo aShs
with justce that when ne has produced saiaDle ntel7r'
article lac SHALL pernitt, 10 cOdirol its sale But ms
production would not be- worth ftrihng II inv n0is
had not produced type paper, presses folding machines
and scores OF minor appliances by which slr Eeide IL
enabled to put his production into Shape % sell Ana
be iyOys injustice when, while exactug hs Own dues, lie
Insists DU Jopn the risDatUr O all that gives cOBI-
,nuI cai value - III. WORK u like reward
Nsac- York, Oct 70. 1870. JAMES A. WHITNEY.