Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1912-03-13

patent causes-haye hitherto strongly az
firmed the principle that the patentee for
the limited term of his patent may make,
use or sell his invention or hide II, or
keep it for his individual use, or restrict
it's use in any manner.
THE reported statement of the Chief
Justice that the case before tile court
was one of an extension OF the incense
restriction and in interference with the
powers of the state courts indicates at
once the line of misrepresentation Whicn
will be created. None OF the cases Wmcn
have been before the courts and In Whlcn
restrictions on licenses have been Sus-
famed has had to do with a contract be-
tween the parties. They have all Deen
ba sed on the proposition of 'contrlbutory
Infringement.
Applies to Both.
"Rv that doctrine if two or more per-
sons make different parts OF patented
machine which when put together, con-
stitute an infringement of the patent, both
narties are .contributory' infringers. In
tho cases under consideration the fed
eral courts have said that one may Ds
a contributory infringer il he makes anu
sells to the user OF paIe ,.,u ~ an nanaso
some material or article which IS neces-
sary to be used in that machine TO make
il efficient and in the face OF noliee
that the machines are soid uiloeI .,e
condition that such material or articie
shall be bought only ifoH 'he pole
of the machine.
For Instance. in the classic .Heaton
peninsular' case Mr.. Justice Lurton'
then of the circuit court or aPpeAs
for the sixth circuit. held that "heIe
the patentee had leased machine win
tho restriction that special kind OF
staple, not patented, was to be Dough.
from the patentee to be used In the
machine other manufacturers VINO mdue
and sold such staples lntended u VIC
tributory infringers of the patent Tor
the machine. This is the furthest eA-
tension of the doctrine of the patent
monopoly. 1t goes to the Dounuary VI
that monopoly. and in no case mas an!
one familiar with the law anticipated
any nossible extension of it over the
boundary of the patent monopoly. Wnere
the relations between the parties nave
gone beyond this. it has been mat
ter of private contract. and these con-
tracts have been Irrigated in the state
courts precisely as other contracts
They do not arise under the patent
laws. and the Dick case does not so
classify them.
Not a Monopoly Of Trade.
..'rhe MONOPOLY of a patent is not
monopoly of an existing trade. 1t Is the
creation of new industry, a new trade,
and a monopoly limited to the term OF
the patent This definition is as old as
the common law of England and was an
nounced 800 years ago by the judges OF
England and by Sir Edward COKE IN MS
famous institutes.
..'rhere are. of course, obvious though
minor abuses of the real spirit and mean
ing of the patent law. These are abuses
which the patent bar has been carefully
f<Nrvr 1lo
Subject of consideration of proposed
conference between representatives OF
patent bar associations and of great tech
meal, scientific and industrial societies
of the country early in April IN TINS CITY.
THE patent bar as body, it is said.
has no retainer to maintain or defend
abuses of the patent law. On the con-
trary. it has written the patent laws, ana
has written the amendments to those
laws in every instance where too much
seemed to have been given the patentee.
The public. however, has not yet con-
ceded to the patentee the full measure
of protection which he originally had, and
patents are now infringed without any
possibility of adequate return to the pat
entee or commensurate punishment OF
Willful infringers.
..The opinion of the Supreme Court by
Justices Lurton. Mckenna. Holmes and
Van Devanter represents the view of men
of wide experience in industrial matters
and in federal grants. Inc dissenting
opinion of Chief Justice White. as stated
in the report Of the rendition OF the Opin-
ion, magnifies the appllcation oI TINS ease :.
to SO remarkable degree as to make 1t
appear menace to the nation. The TACT
is that in spite of all the recent years OF
aggressive combination 1t would be diff
cult. if not impossible. to nnd twenty OF
carnations in the whole United States
whose acts would be in any way subject
to the criticism of the Chief Justice
Dependence Upon Patents.
against these are the thousands upon
thousands of industries. big and small,
scattered over the United States which
depend upon patents and upon the 1air
Interpretation of the patent laws. TO
those familiar with the workings OIL the
patent system many thousands or eN-
amples are known of little shops started
in towns and cities as the result of some
happy thought or of long ana laborious
study and experiment resulting IN pat
ented invention. These shops and indus
tries have grown until they form the
backbone Of the industrial progress OF the
United States.
The influence of patented inventions
upon industries is evidenced not oni! IN
the production of new inventions but in
the actual creation of new industries
within this generation.
"If in some occasional cases there have
been attempts to utilize patents 10 cover
other hand in many cases patents nave
broken up or prevented commercial mo-
nopolies by opening new fields. and the
disclosures presented through the patents
constitute an almost inexhaustible field
of practical value upon which many OF
these industries have been established
after the expiration Of the patents, and
in many cases, unfortunately, after the
inventor or the patentee had failed In re-
ceiving his due reward
There is no system OF law and no sys-
tenn of business which does not nave Its
abuses. The patent system OF the United
States is the most admirable in principle
and spirit Of any similar system In the
world. Dr. l.. H. Baekeland. the inventor
OF Velox paper, of 'Bakelite and OF many
similar important and interesting inven-
tons. in speaking before the Patent Law
Association of Washington, said that the
patent laws of continental europe were
merely revenue laws for the benefit OF the
crown. that the patent laws or England
and Canada were substitutes Tor tariff
laws; while the patent law OF the United
states was founded on the principle of
promoting the progress of science and the
useful arts and is in its essence the most
admirable and effective patent law in the
world.
Prevention Of Trusts.