Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1912-08-14
CAPITAL GOSSIP HEARD At WASHINGTON
Robert N. MevNa1o.
Bismarck Tribune Washington Bureau.


WASHINGTON, August 14th.--Cor
gresham Billy Oldfield, the energeti
and hustling chairman OF the hous
committee on patents, has brought Ii
a substitute bill amending the paten
laws in a drastic and most sagaciou
way, so far as the interests of tn,
people of the country are concerned
Indeed, this is the first time for
long term Of years that any Congress
man has had the sagacity and tn
temerity to offer to Congress the OF
portunity of enacting law that will
have the effect of rescuing the ma
ton from the clutches of the mos
rapacious and grasping Of all of thu
monopoies that have of late year,
conspired to raise and maintain thu
high cost of living-without even tn,
shadow of fair or reasonable ex
cuse.
There is widespread dlssatisfac
ton with the operation Of our paten,
laws. The statutes now in force di
rectly affecting patents have remain
ed practically unchanged since the
revision of 1870. Meanwhile changes
fundamental in character have occur
red i'm our industrial conditions. Chief
among these is the rapid growth OF
trusts and combinations, whose bust
ness rests largely in patents, and
whose financial and industrial power
exercises dominating influence
over many branches of trade. There
is an insstent demand for revision
of our existing laws affecting pat.
ents which shall remove the evils
found to exist, and make our laws
conform to the industrial needs of the
present day.
The investigation by the Oldfield
committee disclosed that the present
dissatisfaction with our patent sys-
tenn is due to variety of causes,
but that two causes entirely distinct
in character are principally operative,
1. The abuses of the rights granted
by patents; 2. The defects of our
present system of administering the
patent law in the U. s. Patent Office
and in the courts. 1t found that no
complete remedy for existing evils
is possible without removing by ade-
quate legislation these two great
causes of dissatisfaction. The discus
sion before the committee was, there
fore, directed mainly to the causes
incident to the use of patent rights,
and was directed specifically to the
following: ~ @a
First. The evils arising from the
vendor of patented article fixing the
price at which that article must be
re-sold to the public.
Second. The evils arising from the
vendors of patented articles prohib-
iting their use except in connection
with other unpatented articles pur-
chased from them.
Third. The evils arising from the
owners Of patents suppressing the
same or prohibiting their use in order
to prevent competition with other
patented or unpatented articles pur-
chased from them.
As remedy for those evils it was
proposed to limit the absolute right
now vested In the owners of patents
under which they determine to what
extent and in what maner the use OF
the patent, or patented article, shall
be permitted. With this in view it
was proposed to take away specific.
ally the right recognized by the lower
: ederal courts to 49,, under the patent
law prices at which articles shall be
sold at retail, and also to take away
the right recently confirmed in the
Monograph case to prohibit patent
ed machines from being used other
wise than in connection with unpat-
tented materials furnished by the
vendor or licensor.
The existing provisions of the law
under which the patent monopoly IN
a new Invention is granted for li,n-
tied perior clearly operate beneficial
ly to the peopel so long as the pat
ent is used for it's legitimate pur-
pose. The evils complained of, so
far as they are connected with pat.
ents, arise only from the perversion
of the patent monopoly to an illegit-
innate use. Widespread evils of which
just complaint is made are due main
ly to the abuses of the patent, either
by making it the means of securing
a monopoly more extensive than that
covered by the patent, or through ac-
cumulating competing patent and sup
pressing part of them.
The patent law was enacted before
any of our trusts came into existence,
when competition was the accepted
law of trade, and when combinations
in restraint of trade were not in con.
temptation. 1t melted inventors to
new effort, and capitalists and bust.
ness men were encouraged to de-
velop inventions. Under these con-
ditions patent, while granting a
monopoly in specific article, had
rarely a tendency to monopolize any
branch of the trade, because few In
ventions were so fundamental in
character as to give the owner OF
the patent monopoly in any branch
branch of the trade, and every great
financial success arising from an indi'
vidual patent was sure to result in
rival inventions. But when concerns
which are, or naturally would be,
owners of competing patents combine
to dominate any branch Of industry
a new and serious situation arises;
the patent perverted from its original
use becomes part Of monopoly of
mOnOpOlies, or is used as an instru-
ment for securing trade monopoly,