New-York tribune., 1878-04-15

only important element in the movements and they
ask THE TRIBUNE to correct upon one important
point which, they say, the articles referred TO contan
and palmer another cardinal point In the con-
sderaon of the questions involved. The alleged error
referred in saying, under the second section OF the
bill If a defendant shows that profits have resulted
from the OF the invention, then recovery OF dam
ages will be impossible"
The bill they say goes upon the theory that in all cases
the paentees shall be entitled to recover as minimum
license fee whether established by his own CONNER
ca transactions by the court, and that the prOn
shall be an additional and exceptional measure of tire
plaintiffs recovery infringement whenever
shall appear that actual profits have been made, rs IN
the profits derived from making and selling, or simply
selling the product of patent. The courts, they assert
have heretofore granted decrees which gave
valuations single patents of thirty, fifty and even
sixty million dollars. These decrees based upon
theoretical savings mot profits resulting from the use
OF the invention, shown by expert tes
timODy. Aud though the patentec desired that
the public should the invention, and the
public has done actual loss Of money which loss
would have been greater the device had not been uscd
the patenee instead of recovering, under the pro
posed bill, reasonable license fee for the Infringement
RECEIVERS whatever the experts may show this addi-
tonal problcmatical loss might have been This rule OF
savings is shown, these people say by all the argu-
OF all the representatives OF all the interests in
voved they have appeared before the committee to
be without parallel aud without paation in the invar
liable injustice of its application, and s entirely gotten
rid OF by the provisions OF the section referred to- which
allow license fee in all cases and also allow the fall
Of the profits 10 be recovered in cases where
actual profits have been realized by the use OF the III
ycuuOn.
Tue friends OF the hill seriously object TO Of the
amendments made by the Senate committee, which they
claim Is fatty opposed To thsahove propositions Which
underlie and should govern the entire section. The
question in where no license fee has been esab-
shed by reasonable number Of transactions TO when the
patentee was party. aud where profits have been
realized, what is 10 be the measure OF the recovery
The license fee is the exclusive measure
OF recovery in actions at law, when las
been cstabshedb but when one has not been established
the damages determined from all the evidence
which may be presented Including evidence under the
above rule Of Which, Is asserted utJut aud
impracticabe. Damages may therefore, mean profits
and savings, while license fee means the commercial
value OF the patent % liked by reasonable number Of
untrammccd business transactions between the owner
Of the patent and his licensees So the word "same ~
the sentence Of the original section providing for
coycry where license fee has been established and
profits realized, means license Zee 10 DE liked by the
court but charged by the Senate 10 "damasrs,' which
implies retention of part Of the present rules, to
which objection IL made.
It's insisted that cardinal point in tic consideration
OF the questions involved in the distinction which should
drawn between the protection Of the ultimate right OF
property conferred upon the pacntccnamcy an eXclu
sye monopoly-and the fixing Of measure OF reward TO
him where he does not desire practise exclusive
monopoly and where the sole value Of his patent de
pcnds upon being practsed by others radical and
sufficient protection Of his exclusive MONOPOLY II he dc
sres TO retain Is IN the right Of Injunction, which II
issued with questionable freedom aud 10 which a'l
owners OF valid patent claims are entitled at any ume
during the life Of a patent.
The other question, aud entirely different one, Is
what is a reasonable of recovery reward To
the patentoe for the OF his invention by the public
IN where lie does not desire or with aches refuses
10 protect his exclusive monopoly, having in
mind that 30 cent of such use by the
public innocent, being IN utter ignorance OF the exist
Of such claims.