New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1879-08-18
IyVEyT0Ps AND THE GOVERNMENT.


INVENTORS And TIE GOVERNHENT.
A decision just rendered by Judge Wheeler,
in the United States Circuit Court, indicates
way by which patentees may enforce
their rights against violations under Govern
mental authority. The suit was brought by the
proprietor of patent granted in 1853 to Mar
Gus p. Norton, for an improvement In mark
ing and canceling stamps for posts office use.
The essential idea Of the invention consists
in combining two dies or seals in one imple-
ment, in such manner that the operator can,
with single stroke, cancel the postage stamp
on the corner of an envelope, and also
imprint the pOst-mark. This device obviously
dimuishcs the time required for stamping let
ters By about one half, and, when the daily
demands of that duty throughout the forty
odd thousand post Offices of the country are
estimated, it viii be seen that an important
economy is accomplished. There is no de-
mand for such an invention however, except
for postal purposes, hence when the owner OF
the patent found that the post Offices persisted
in using the machine without paying royalty,
he discovered that his invention was in
danger of becoming valueless.
Former decisions Of the Courts have seemed
to concede the inventors abstract right but to
DENY that the Courts could enforce il against
the United States. This suit was therefore
framed against Postmaster James in person,
and REQUIRED him 20 account for profits realized
from his use of the invention in the New ork
Post Office. And Judge Wheeler decides that
the suit, brought in this form, may be sus-
tanned. The defence of chief general interest
was that the Postmaster, in using the stamp,
acted as an officer of the Government, and
only for its benefit and that the monopoly
granted by patent does not extend to or
prohibit use by Government. AS to this point
the opinion says:
But the exclusive OF the invention granted to the
patentee il property and this property Is now owned
by the plaintiff The grant saved nothing for the use
Of the Government; it was exclusive absolutely through
out the United States. II granted by express law
OF Congress, pursuant TO the Constitution. without
which Il could exist. But all property is upheld by
law either expressly rimpedy enacted or adopted, all
Of which is the law Of tbs land, the the statutes
unfolding patents are This property, ike all other
private property recognized by law, Is exempt from
being taken for public use without just compensation
NV The supreme law Of the land. Nor 1t be taken by
any officer at win. in time OF peace. leaving the owner
TO seek compensation. The property In patented
yenion stands the same other property in this
spect.
The decision will be more welcome to in
yentors because, as already said, former de-
cisions In this field have been, like Candidate
Stebbins's opinion as to the Maine law, lin
" favor of the law, but agin its being put in
force They have agreed that though
English patents are probably subject to a
right of the Crown to use the invention, yet
under our patent law no such reservation is
implied the United States has no better
right than has private person. But familiar
principles forbid the courts to enjOin the
Government directly; besides, the patentee
generally does not wish the use stopped, but
continued and paid for. Suits have been
brought in the Court of Claims, but have been
met by the obstacle that that court can render
Judgment against the Government for money
it has contracted to pay, but not for damages for
wrongs done by its officers. This very invention
of Norton's was before the Court OF Claims,
some years ago, upon claims that the Post
Office Department had agreed to pay for the
use of it !; and the suit was lost because the
court decided that the agreement was not
nroved; that what the Postmaster General
had said to the patentee about compensation
amounted only TO an opinion that Congress
would vote him an appropriation. AS he had
uo contract the court could do nothing for
him.
Under Judge Wheeler's decision pat
entee may claim profits from the officer
chargeable with infringing. The doctrine
has support from a decision OF the Circuit
Court, in Massachusetts,, about two years ago,
where infrngers made defence that their use
of the invention was not for their own bene-
fit, but TO fulfil a contract with Government.
and for its use but the court said this was
no protection-Governmen could not author
ize them to violate patents. And it is con-
sonant with justice. In the whole function of
forwarding letters, Government acts only as
n business agent of tho masses of the people /;
and if they, as individuals, have not the
right to use an invention free. their agent,
the Post Office Department. should not be al
lowed to do so.
Suddenly there is great sympathy expressed for
a moor little girl only soyeD years old discovered