The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-06-06
M0N0P0LIES AND PATENTS.

The decision of the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals affirming the validity of
the Berliner patent, thereby giving the
Bell Telephone Company monopoly of
the microphone until 1908, has aroused a
storm of angry criticism that may go far
toward bringing about change in our
patent laws. Indeed some of the more in
fuential journals in the East advocate the
abolition of patent rights altogether as
being opposed to public welfare and in no
wise beneficial to inventors.
The facts of the Berliner case are suffi-
cient to justify indignation. The inven-
ton followed very closely after that of the
telephone itself and made long-distance
telephony possible. The Bell Company
bought and used the invention, but did not
patent it until the Bell patent was about
to run out. 1t was claimed by rival tele-
phone companies that the patent was void
because it had been illegally delayed, and
this claim was sustained by decision of
the Circuit Court, which has been over
ruled by the Court of Appeals. AS con-
sequence the Bell Company, which had a
monopoly of the telephone for many years
under the Bell patent, now continues a
monopoly of long-distance telephoning
under the patent which they succeeded in
obtaining upon an invention which has
long been in use.
1t is clear that this is q perversion of the
real intent of our patent laws. When Con-
gress undertook to promote the increase of
labor-saving appliances by securing to the
inventor the profits arising from his inven-
ton for a limited number of years, it was
not foreseen that combinations of capital
lists would buy up every widely useful in
vention and thereby establish monopoly
injurious to the public welfare. Still less
was it foreseen that by securing the title to
Improvements made upon the original in
vention and delaying the issuing of pat
ent for them, it would be practicable to
continue the monopoly almost indefinitely.
This, however, is what has come about in
recent years, and while the trick of the
Bell Telephone Company is the most fla
grant example of the kind, it does not
stand alone or without a precedent in our
recent history.
That the inventor should derive some
benefit from the success of his work is be-
yond question. 1t is evident, however,
that our patent laws should be amended so
as to prevent inventions from falling into
the hands OF monopoly, especially if the
invention is of kind that affects the pub
lie at large.
There are abundant reasons for believing
that the formation of such monopolies acts
as restriction upon the progress of the
world in the direction of useful invention.
Frequently they prevent improvements
being made in the appliances under their
control because the adoption of such i'm.
provements would entail loss of part
of the plant already established, and in
other instances they render the cost of the
invention so high that it cannot come into
general use and be of benefit to the poorer
as well as the richer classes of the COM
munity. These Objectionable features have
now become so common it is time some
remedy should be provided, and it would
seem the Berliner case may prove the occa-
sion of arousing Congress to action at its
next session.