The Washington times., 1904-09-26
More About Patents.


the existing patent law has evoked a
protest from Joseph Leicester Atkins,
q local patent attorney. The ground
taken by The Times was that manufac-
turing companies, already issuing de-
vices protected by letters patent,
regularly considered the value of new
patents touching their products, pur-
chased those new patents whenever
possible, and then deliberately chose
between the Development of the new
device commercially and the suppress
sion of it for feaf of disturbing exist
ing trade conditions II was stated
that TO the great credit of American
commerce, the decision was usually
in accord with the spirit of the patent
iaw-which is undoubtedly to foster
an advance of the useful arts-but
that the suppression of valuable in
ventiOns was not only not rare, but
had ceased to occasion surprise. To
correct this abuse The Times sug-
gested that a time limit be establish
ed for the development of devices
covered by certificates of patent, as
many other countries have done and
are now doing.
Mr.. Atkins protest is too long to
be quoted in full. Its substance. how
ever, is expressed in the following
paragraph:
Why, NJ. Editor. did it not occur to the
writer Of that article that the difference be-
tween one invention and another in point Of
difficulty Of development amounts practically to
infnity? Was he, the writer, wholly
ignorant Of the history Of the long struggles for
very existence which the telephone had TO make
before il could secure the vestige of a foothoid
wherein 70 erect its ultimate benefit 70 man
kinds Does he not comprehend that the greater
and more revolutionary an invention actually
IS, the greater the difficulties il must encoun-
ter? It remains 70 be taken note Of that many
Of the inestimably benefcent inventions are
never developed" IN the commercial sense.
Nevertheless, they lend their aid to the advance
in the material arts
Other patent attorneys will not
think Mr. Atkins instance of the
telephone a wise selection. The orig
inal patent under which the Bell
Telephone Company has operated
since 1877 was granted to Alexander
Graham Bell, and covered the whole
ground of telephony-"th transmits
sion of articulate sound by means of
electrical undulations.' Suppose Prof.
Bell had been unable or unwilling to
develop that idea. The result would
have been-as the light Of later years
enables us TO judge it-so costly and
so indefensible an abuse of the public
right as to condemn the whole patent
system 20 revision. The telephone
would have been unknown until 1884;
for Prof. Bells invention Of the mid
die EOS was a mere toy.
Fortunately he and his business as
sociates chose to develop the toy into
a tool They did this by buying and
developing the inventions of other
men-Berliner. Blake. and Edison
and they have enjoyed a monopoly Of
the telephone trade for about thirty
five years. Prof Bell has been album
dainty rewarded by the privileges
which the patent law extends. But
If he had failed to develop" his
patent right in the commercial sense
the whole country would have suf-
fered the privation of a practical.
general, and extremely valuable con-
venience.
The Times undertook merely to en-
phasize the existence Of this danger.
II is known 70 exist. Every patent
attorney on the roll Of the Patent
Office can testify TO it. And the laws
of other countries are proof that il
can be averted.
The difference between one inven-
ton and another in point Of difficulty
OF development does amount prac-
tically 20 infEity. But the patent
law cannot bridge that difference. or
II would grant some inventors a
monopoly of much less than seven
teen years, and others a monopoly Of
much more. The failure to develop
many Of the inestimably benefcent
Inventions in the commercial sense
establishes nothing which can pos
sibly relate TO the suppression of in
venuons, excepting that these same
inventions have been made practical
by devices which supersede the
original
That thought suggests, however,
another argument in favor Of some
Limitation of the patent right which
shall compel development" When
the original Dateutee. the inventor.
granted broad protection like that
which was given Prot. Bell, does not
fulfill his privilege under the patent
law-which is TO make. use, and
sell"-he estops all progress along
that same line
No layman will dispute this. Ger
tainly no patent attorney can dispute
it. In Canada it is remedied by the
courts. which appraise the value OF