The Corvallis gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Or.) 1862-1899, 1894-10-19
DRAWING THE LINE.
Inventors Not to Be Allowed to Claim
Every Slight Improvement.

The recent decision of Judge Ache
son against one of the numerous
claims of Mr.. Edison to be the only
original inventor of everything, em-
bodies definition of public policy in
the encouragement and protection Of
invention that is not new, but is SO
often obscured that it's reassertion is
important. This policy is well ex-
planned in some observations of the
supreme court quoted by Judge ache
son. The process of development in
manufactures creates constant de-
mand for new appliances which the
skill of ordinary wOrkmen and en-
glneers is generally adequate to de-
wise and which indeed are the natural
| and proper outgrowth of such devel-
opment Each step forward prepares
the way for the next, and each is
usually taken by spontaneous trials
and attempts in a hundred different
places. 'To grant a single party a
| monopoly of every slight advantage
made, except where the exercise Of
| invention somewhat above ordinary
mechanical or engineering skill is dis
tinctly shown, is unjust in principle
and injurious in it's consequences"
| 1t is not possible to define exactly
work Of that inventive faculty which
1t was the purpose of the constitution
and patent laws to encourage and re-
ward" Even the officials of the pat
ent office cannot always discriminate
between what Is merely step in
! general development and what is an
absolute exercise of invention. If an
| Improvement is such as can be exact
! ly described and it is found on ex-
| animation that it is not covered by q
| previous patent, protection is granted
| to it as a matter of form, leaving to
the patentee the task of defending OR
enforcing his right. Thus the actual
Interpretation of the patent laws, or
rather the actual determination
whether an invention is or is not such
as the patent laws are intended to
protect, necessarily falls upon the
courts, and while the personal discre-
ton of individual judges may lead to
occasional contradictions, the general
policy of the United States courts is
by this time fairly settled and COM
I pIete.
A practical invention, an exercise
of the creative faculty of actual serv-
ice to mankind, the courts will always
protect, but they are less and less dis
posed to sanction the claims of profess
siOnal inventors to common improv e.
ments and thus to grant to individ-
ualS monopoly of that which be-
longs to the public. Invention has be-
come of late SO much a matter of bus
mess that the patent laws, which were
designed for the protection of the in
dividual inventor, have been in count
less cases distorted to the mere pro-
lection of corporate mOuopolies. Com
panieS with large capital, controlling
Il great uuInber of patents. are thus
enabled not orly to tax the public
Unreasolubly, bat actually to discour-
age aud r2press the exercise of the in
ventire faculty in those who are not
sulservient to them. This is a mis-
lse of statutory protection for which
the courts are not entirely without re-
sponsibility, and it is, therefore, the
mere significant that they have lately
shown a disposition to correct this
evil and to place the law Of patents
upon more equitable basis Of public
policy.