New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-04-28
THE INDUSTRIAL UNION.
WHY THE UNITED STATES SHOULD MOI
JOIN IT.
TIE AMERICAN INVENTOR WOULD BE PLACED Al
A GREAT DISADVANTAGE.
n, TELEGRAPH TO The rRIBuSE.I

WASHINGTON April 27.--Ihe publication Dy
TIVE TEpsSE Of the proposed treaty for the proeco VI
industrial property has attracted attention among P"o
LAWYERS inventors manufacturers and others ln'erese
in the subject The editorial accompanying tho puphca-
ion of the treaty is regarded sound and STRIKING tue
right KEYNOTE because it suggests that some cauoh De
used before the Government commits Itself 10 inc s'u
Istons o. the treaty. The criticism generally haoe pS
those familiar with the patent system OF TINS country Is
that il was not only little regarded, hut apparently hlS
understood by the Conference which iIamen te treaty
This position understood to be that taken by the COM
missioner OF Patents who has prepared report on he
treaty at the request Of the senate
Colonel Seeev one OF the examiners in the Buroau, ard
an authority on matters the affecting right OF traue
marhs said of the treaty;
"The most cusOv reading Of shows thatt proceeds Oh
priucipes quite at variance with those that obtain here
The American system is the most liberal in the world s
benefits conferred freely upon all wheut question as
to their residence citizenship is doubtful WheIno
this treaty gives to citizens Of other nations any NHo
privilege with regard to patents in this country Whch eS
do already possess by virtue OF our benehcent STATUTE
make this assertion sweeping in order 10 emphasize
the one exception to 1t which find in the treaty, wmch
indicates most stIkmpy the difference between our SyS-
TEN and the European, aud which reveals an objection 10
its ratification by the Senate that must be fatal to IT, Inc
theory OF our patent that the patent shall go 10 inc
first inventor of a and useful Improvement 10 thS
end il provides for most cid examination as 10 novelty
unknown for any European law, ana Ior me""'
Of determining priority OF Invention i'll case
of conflicting applications for patents ior 'ne
same or like inventions. In such case AS ths testr
monv NAV be taken and an award of priority made the
procedure following far as practicable that OF a
court OF equity There tribunal whose conclusions
are more highly esteemed more generally aeqnesced
in than those ot the patent office in interference cases
THESE two features of our law, exclusively American
contribute immensely to the value OF an American patent
in
inventors AS against the public and against each Other
and i'm preventing costly litigation, simply lncacu
liable"
AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN SYSTEMS.
Glow do you interpret the language Of Article OF the
treaty. which does not seem to be particularly mlelH
cibler
.ro he understood il must he regarded in the light OF
the European systems which largely after the same
model aud under which patent may 90 a.
n matter of course to the first applicant
whether he he the inventor not who pays the fees ana
complies WIN 1nG u Ge fe pata!ice, and the
va eut. when issued, runs from te Glt OF e-ist,iuk
ihe application This, in general, i Europe ~ practice
and il quite III contrast with that Of this country Mock
animation is had as novelty lh'uth tltt 50 ltnf
and no means are provided for determining priority Now
under the treaty. this article WouId ehUlt ! ot uNle
any treaty making state 10 pres nj himself II the United
states Patent Office any tine within seven mouths ana
demand patent Tor an HoeNu@Sn' "l c.cor~itcate
from Portugal or ScTvid the doors OF the i%icht
once are thrown VIDE open. Nothing that has
occurred in the meantime hot 95cn a. P5 t,ht
granted to another person. i TO lnvaidate TINS rGh
and while Ctizrn o. New York or Kansas must await
The slow process OF examination into novelty ahu' III
ease o. conflict The long Decay of an interference holnI
3. TO G-tr the Turk -rry9u from the exclusive Hen7
afforded ,V uateut Against the uucOuslGcrtd CcFilh
catr ol 9ny European patent ohce neither inc rights
Che American inventor nor III lhc 41eIi uDc -40 "
have any weight
BENEFITS 10 TIE AMERICAS.
ain what respect does the treaty benefit the American
invcntorp
'rhe treaty contains many provision swhe1ely an amer
lean can benefits OF great value III Ihe various
teS of Union SUCH in general are ll silpuaI0hS
regarding the reciprocal pro ecuon or uaIc ihd!hS
ia,urh some ~ these never be enforced III TINS
country, As between the nations OF Eur Pc NHoSt
~ TENS Of patent and trade marx registration 90 not
dtrr widely from each other. IL may be eXC6hcht :
lut il is as completely variance with the cSldbbshou
doctrines of the United states paIn Sy Stem az usI t
Darkness ana be no concord bet #eeh he Two
s ratification would be disastrous. DouOtSs uhcTc "a Z
good patent lawyers the senate Among them may pee
counted Mr. Plat Of Connecticut and the inventors OF
iis hands ] imagine he will not be slow % detect Tue
danger Of step which, in the gulse OF
oirn, great advantages to the Americans Tor the pIO
lection Of Inventions abroad, wO III 20 lar 10 destroy
the advantages they now posses ~ nome
A RErEBENCE TO MIR. PUTNAM.
"T1on Won do not think that Mr.. Putnam represented
the true interests of the country"
81 DO not know what qualifications he was suspected OF
having to represent the United states in the International
Conference With tolerable acquaintance with patent
LAWYER, Tor years DO NOT re member having heaId
his name as Que OF them. II VIII strike everyone as
STR .e that person familiar with our s}-tcm, ana
! r4nr,Srntiug orr Government in such q conferences,
should have his adh sion for moment 10 popO
stion 50 incompatible with Tie interests OF or people,
|