New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-04-05
DIR PATENT SYSTEM.

our PATENT SYSTEM
The bill reported by the Senate Committee
on Patents is far superior in most OF
its provisions to the measures which
have been previously brought before Con-
gress. Those measures were, III general,
destructive. Some were aimed at the rev
enue of the Patent Office, that bureau
enioving the proud distinction Of being self
supporting. Others would have destroyed the
value Of patent, either by limiting its pow
ers, or by making 1t Obtainable without re-
search as to its originality. The last was the
favorite form OF attack. Its argument
proceeded on the ground that ut present
| the validity of patent, if seriously contested,
| is ultimately determined by our courts. Since
| they must be appealed to for final decision,
why 90 through intermediate steps at the
| Patent Office The proposition was to issue a
patent to every applicant who paid the reSu-
lar fees and then let him substanlate his claim,
| as best he could, in law suit. No doubt, such
| an arrangement would bnng money to the legal
profes sion, and would greatly diminish the
labors of Patent Office Examiners In another
form, this scheme proposed to give Il patent
TO the first applicant, without asking whether
|
been granted in this country on the inven-
| ton. Fortunately, none of these bills ever
became law They were based on a misappre-
hension Of our patent system. Its chief excel
lcnce is in the security it affords to poor IN
vcntor. Rich ones can take care OF themselves
under almost any system.
With the exception Of a single clause, the
new bill mostly seeks to build mp more Sc
cmely the rights of inventors. That clause
would give a large loopholc for people to
crawl through who use inventions without
paying the patentccs. 1t is so obviously unlike
the rest of the bill IN principle that 1t could
only have passed the committee by an
oversight. When this clause is removed
from the bill, it will deserve hearty
support from inventors, although, perhaps,
many of them will object to the provision re-
curing $50 to be paid every five years to
maintain a patent. There may be cases in
which that would work hardship; these should
at least he fairly considered, and probably the
fee proposed is two or three times larger than
needed for the purpose But the new
| bill, IA n whole, exhibits an admirable
| public sentiment on the subject OF patents. 1t
is the substantial result Of much inquiry.
| Considering that the number OF persons who
would like to use inventions without paying
| for them, must be at least rs large IA the
army of inventors, il ia an exceedingly en-
| couraging sign that only two petitions were
| presented to the committee asking that all our
patent laws be swept away. 1t shows q gem
| eral recognition of the right of property in the
creations of the mind and may be fairly set
against the evidence that the theories oil COM
munism are making Roadway among our
people.
Arguments of great force were brought be-
fore the committee in support of our patent
| SYSTEM Some OF these took wide scope. III
was shown. for instance, that i'll no preceding
age of civilization had the inventive genius of
men been so wonderfully stimulated as at
present. Tracing the growth of invention. we
find il most rapid where the patent system
has been most complete. Differences of
race or of political institutions will not cx-
plain this fact. Switzerland, long the freest
country in Europe. is far behndhand IN the
march of invention; the simplest explanation
| is that she does not protect the inventor The
| limited States is In advance of Great Britain
in these matters, chiefly if not solely because
patents are cheaper here, and are granted to
| tbe originator instead of to the mere intro
ducer of a novelty. Almost every intelli-
gent foreigner who visited the Centennial Elk
hibition and wrote upon the subject, attributed
| fine advances in our great industries to the
fostering of ingenuity by our patent laws.
Other countries are now basing improvements
| in their patent systems upon our own. To
those persons who still think, notwithstanding
such evidence, that the progress of invention
here i, solely due to National characteristics
and the peculiarties of the American mind,
another argument might be offered, which was
not presented to the committee 1t is well
known that the art of medicine has not kept
| mace in improvement with other arts and
sciences during the century. Its novelties,
outside of those contributed by the sister art of
surgery, are few. OF those novelties some
we've originally patented inventions; IN fact,
there is a considerable list of prescriptions in
the pharmac0ppia that are derived from such
sources. But the rules by which the regular
| practitioners have bound themselves forbid
| them to patent their inventions Alongside of
tlisis the fact that they rarely invent. Ii seems
natural to suppose that the two facts bear
fine relation of cause and effect. 1t il certainly
a consequence that the quacks, as distinguished
from the regular profession, devise a vast
number Of fairly successful inventions, under
the stimulus of our patent laws; and to that
extent they drive the genuine physicians out
of their proper field.
| ---------------------