New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-07-02
VALUELESS PATENTS.

The important suit which has been be
gun to test the right of the Edison Electric
Lighting Company to use the incandescent
light invented by Mr.. Edison illustrates anew
the practical failure of our patent system to ac-
complsh its object. Mr.. Ellison claims to have
invented the method of electric lighting i'll use
by the company bearing his name, and claims
priority of invention The Sawyer-Man Com
pany also claims priority in the same invention.
Upon hearing before the Patent Office, the use
of the ibrous Glament was finally awarded to
Sawyer g. Man, and the suit is now brought to
restrain Mr. Edison from infringing their
patent.
Thus it comes to pass, in nearly all cases
where large sums of money are believed
to depend upon the validity of a patent, that
the decision of the Patent Office is held OF no
account, and the question is taken directly to
the courts. because all parties understand that
no final and binding decision can be otherwise
reached. Out of this results the comparative
usclessness of the patent to most inventors
Unless the inventor has at command the large
sum of money required to defend his rights in
prolonged and costly suits, from the lowest
court to the highest and to employ lawyers and
experts with very large fees. and to meet all
the expenses Of q contest prolonged for years,
he may as well throw his patent into the fire.
Any claimant or prctendcr, having longer
purse, can defy him with impunity. Nor is this
all : the decisions in the different States do not
agree. 1t not infrequently happens that one
party TO a controversy is successful In some
States and the other in other States, so that for
years the rights of the parties remain undeter-
mined. Under the present system 1t does not
seem possible To avoid this state of things and
the consequence is that many able men have
recently favored the abolition of the Patent
Office altogether. They say with some truth
that the courts so often decide in direct opposi
ton to, the decisions of the Patent Office that
the patent has really ceased to have any sub
stantial value to the inventor.
But the remedy proposed is probably worse
than the existing evil. The American patent
system, with all its faults, has been OF great
service in stimulating tho inventive genius OF
the people II does need modification and i'm
provement, particularly with view to secure to
the inventor advantages which, rs matters now
stand, usually accrue mainly to the capitalists
who undertake the prolonged struggle in the
development and defence of a patent. The
patent when lSSuel ought w ih'"h h'"'' ''"" ~
does. II ought to mean more thorough IN
vestigation of the facts upon which claim Is
based. and of rival claims, and decision So
Trustworthy that it shall carry with 1t meaSur-
able assurance that it will not be disturbed. If
such decisions could be reached, and such
patents issued by the Department at tshlng-
ten it would then be not improper to give to the
holders of patents some rights with respect to
the defence of their claims in the courts which
they do not now possess. The root of the diff
Guilty is that the decisions of the Patent once
have not been found trustworthy. The fault
has indeed been many times with the courts,
hitch have undertaken to decide patent Iues-
tons without adequate inquiry or knowledge.
But it is also true that in many other eases the
Patent Office itself has been found in fault. 1t
is worth while to consider whether means cam
not be devised to secure more thorough investl-
cation, and n sounder decision by the Depart
ment at Washington.