Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-08-04
PROTECTION NEEDED
For the Industrious American Me-
chanic Who Secures a Patent
on Useful Invention.
OUR LAWS ARE FULL OF DEFECTS
And. .Patentees Who Should Make Fortunes
are Robbed of the Fruits of Their
honest Toll.
AREcGNT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES
Which Made Important Recommendations Regarding
Industrial Property.
OUR LAWS ARE FULL OF DEFECTS
AREcGET INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
Which Made Important Recommendations Regarding
Industrial Property.
rsprcr1r, rELEenAx TO TIE prspArcH.,

rePEcIAL TELEGRAM TO TIE DlsPATcH,l
NEW YORK, August 3.-The United
States delegation to the recent conference
of the International Union for the Protec-
tiou Of Industrial Property which met at
Madrid last April have just had their final
meeting. There have been several attempts
in late years to unite various nations enjoy
ing reciprocal relations on some general
plan Of protection for patents and trade
marks The growth of such relations has
been very slow.
The United States did not adhere to the
union until 1887, and when this conference
was announced Patent Commissioner
Mitchell was the business man of the Gov
ernment who saw the Importance of obtain
ing a wider market for American inventions,
and greater International protection for the
trade marks. He was warmly seconded by
Honorable Benjamin Butterworth, ex-com-
missioner, who introduced q bill for the
proper representation of the United States
at Madrid. Under the act Hon. I. w.
Palmer, now President of the Worlds Fair;
Colonel T. A. Seely, of the United States
Patent Office, and Francis Forbes, New
York jurist who has given special attention
to trade marks, were appointed delegates.
The protocol of the conference shows
AVERY IMPORTANT ADVANCE
toward reciprocal relations of the States
composing the Union, and is signed by
representatives of France, Belgium. Brazil,
Spain, Guatemala, Italy, the Netherlands,
Portugal, Salvador, Servia, Switzerland,
England, Norway, Sweden, Tunis, Ger
many and the United States. A represent
ative of THE DISPATCH called upon Mr..
Forbes nt his Office on Broadway. He is
quiet, unassuming gentleman, with
pleasant face, full dark beard and slightly
dropping shoulders, and is always busy
without hustle. He is a very interesting
talker.
YES" said he, eve have every reason to
feel gratIfed with the results of this confer
ence. The United States is the natural
home of the inventor and this country is
more interested in the subject of industrial
protection than snv other. The first confer
ence in regard to industrial property was
q voluntary one, held at the Vienna Exposi-
tion. The French Government gave its
sanction to another convention at the Paris
Exposition of 1878. I attended this confer
ence and well remember the earnestness
with which the proposition of international
unity for the protection of industrial prop
erty was discussed. The discussion was
thrown open to any one, and those who took
part sought their own interest in making a
wider market for the products OF their
genius.
THE RIGHTS OF PATENTEEs.
"This conference adjourned to 1880. The
conference of that year was more formal,
and eliminated in the conference of March
20, 1883, which formulated the Union for the
Protection of Industrial Property. Great
Britain hid not give in its adhesion till 1885
and the United States joined the union in
1887. One of the distinguishing features Of
the union of 1888 is the period of priority,
as it is called, or in other words period of
time after the application in one country
during which the right to a patent in
another country of the union will not be de-
stroyed by publication or use of the in
vention or other things which would other
wise destroy it, and during which another
person cannot obtain a patent in those
countries where the right to the patent de-
pends by law upon the date of application.
It has happened in England that an
Englishman has applied for patent and
while the proceedings of the Patent Office
before the grant of the patent were taking
place, an American has filed q copy of his
American application and the application
OF the Englishman has been rejected and the
American of earlier application at home re-
ceiyed the patent"
INVENTORS AND MoNoPoLIsTs.
will you kindly give an example of how
this works?"
Certainly. Without the right to take
out patent, or, in other words, to obtain q
monopoly the American inventor cannot
hope TO sell his invention abroad; the inn
portauce therefore, OF some convention by
which he can get such monopoly is appar-
cnt. We have thrown our doors open to
the inventors Of the world without asking
their Governments for anything in return
For example, we gave the inventors of
artificial alizarian patent for the article
which the Custom House showed was i'm
ported to the extent of750, 900 pounds in
1888, and for which we paid about one
dollar pound more while the patent was
in force than after it was declared invalid;
in other words $3.50, 900 was taken from the
conntry because it had granted a patent.
The German who took out the patent, or his
yeldors, had this profit for his genius. On
European patents for the graphophone, an
American invention, were sold for $500, ,000
The international value of invention is,
therefore, apparent
1.-The United States delegation attempted
to introduce such q change into the con-
Vention that the period of priority should
run from the publication of the American
patent, ana not from the time of applioa-
tion as now.
A GREAT DISADVANTAGE.
"Our system of preliminary examination |
makes II impossible TO determine how soon |
the patent will be issued. The period is va |
rying. but abroad it is generally fixed, the |
application being eotemporaneous with the |
date of the patent. In analogy we thought |
that date Of priority should date from the |
grant of the American patent. If this could |
be brought about, the American inventor |
could send his American patent abroad and |
oner the invention for sale. Now he cannot |
90 this, because publication destroys the |
right to obtain a patent in most countries. |
We were not successful in this. Our laws |
are SO framed as to punish the American in |
ventor Tor taking out a patent abroad prior |
to his American patent, which IL is necessa-
ry now in most countries to do in order to |
obtain q valid foreign patent. by shortening
his home patent accordingly. This is a |
fault which we might correct ourselves.
me conference recommended that nat
ents be made independent of one another,
Merchandise marked received great atten-
tion in the conference. A separate couyen-
tion Tor the repression of false indication of
origin on merchandise was proposed. and
wAs strongly advocated by the British dele
CATION.
PROTECTION AGAINST couNTERFEIrs.
"The language of the FIRST article clearly
indicates itG scope;
Article one: Every product bearing n false
Of origin in which one Of the con.
tracttng states or a place situated in one of |
them, shall be directly or indirectly indicated