Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-04-15
PATENTS AND MoNoPoLrEs.

The celebration of the patent centennial
last week has revived the discussion about
the creation of monopolies under the patent
laws. In reply to an allegation that the
present laws serve to promote monopoly
the New York Recorder AYERS:
The Ame mean patent system simply aims TO
secure to one sort of property the protection
which the laws of all countries afford to other
kinds. They (the patent laws) are
not in their nature monopolistic, but the re-
verse, Tor there is nothing more opposed to
monopoly than the free development of prac.
iiCal individual thought. The function of the
inventor IS to innovate. to break in upon some
long-established method by substituting new
aud better one for it. Its tendency is to pre-
vent monopolies from becoming inveterate, and
indeed to cut the very ground from under their
fees.
1t is iBdisputsble that in the majority of
cases the effect of patents has been 10 stimu-
late progress. But there have been excep-
tions, and ii is worth while considering
whether the tendencies that create them are
not gaining strength. Taking the assertion
OF our New York cotemporary that the
tendency Of patents is to cut the ground
from under the feet of monopolies, let us
suppose that patent is brought out which
will break down an established and wealthy
monopoly. Is there anyone likely to more
promptly supply the inventors need for
money, OF better able TO pay a good price
for the patent than the monopoly endangered
thereby? And when the monopoly has
gained control of the patents, is it more
likely to 90 to the expense of creating new
plants to carry on the improved process or
10 suppress the new patent altogether?
All this is true enough as regards the gen.
ersl operation OF most patents. But it is
none the less undisputabie that the means
taken by our patent laws to reward inven-
tiOn and secure the benefits to the public of
new discoveries and scientific progress, is to
create a monopoly in each patent. The
monopoly is limited as to duration, but uu-
limited as to extent during its duration. 1t
extends not only to the property in the idea
but to the use of the idea itself, so that the
cwner Of the patent can totally forbid its
use if he chooses. Thus the possibilities of
The law include the defeat OF its own pur-
pose, which is, TO say the least, paradoxical.
This IS no merely Imaginary contingency.
1t is exactly what has been done in the case
CT two great patents, which, if they had
been actively used, would have made great
yhauges in industry and inter-communica-
lion. But the great interests iuperiled were
Able to buy them up, and the consequence is
hat after years the public has received none
ol the benefits. There are probably other
samples of less prominence in which the
mpnopOly created under the patent laws mas
resulted in the defeat of their public pur-
po4e. Such examples would prove the
ae6essity Of a change, if there were no
other wav TO secure the inventor his reward
than by granting him this exclusive use.
But the question whether that reward can
not be secured without this feature is one
that has never been fairly or impartially
co5idered
believe that. with unpreiudiced in