Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1912-02-18
Needed Patent Law Changes.
To the Editor Of The Star

10 tne EDITOR or The Star:
wish to thank you, in behalf of the
Brotherhood of Inventors evervwhere.
whether organized or not, for your recent
appreciative editorial on the patent Office
ana Its conditions. I cannot quite follow
your figures on annual profit, which do
not agree with my understanding and
analysis of the commissioners annual
report.
However that may be, inventors do not
feel That the patent office is, or has been.
9ncroaching upon the Department of the
interior, as you put 1t. We see IL quite
the other way about, since the patent Of
nee building was erected and paid for
OUT OF the receipts Of the patent system,
ana =, as We think, is our building. We be-
neve that the Interior Department has
detriment Of the patent service. Your
graphic account of the conditions of the
building is not overdrawn, but the build
ing needs betterment no more than the
patent system itself and its business with
inventors to Wnom Congress denies the
relief given authors in the copyright
law and manufacturers in the trade mark
law. so long ago as 1908. While a copy
right Is Tor twenty-eight years, with priv
nege OF renewal for half as long again,
ana while a trade mark runs twenty
years and may be renewed indefinitely or
perpetually; while an injunction against
an 1nfringer on a trade mark, in any of
the nine federal circuit courts, Is good in
all the others copyright property being
equally welrprotected by our courts), the
infringing thief in a patent case cannot
be stopped until chased through all the
nine circuit courts, and need not even
pay court costs, if he moves from one
jurisdiction to another as fast as sued.
(And 1t takes from three to six years to
corner him in each cOurt-or from two to
four times the life of the patent for all of
them-if the thief defends.) Let, should
the infringer. by hook, crook or bribery,
he can settle in that jurisdiction and keep
the lawful owner out of it, while he ships
at will to all the others.
Startling, isn't it, on first hearing? But
interesting, If true? And the reason for
such rank discrimination against worthy
workers and the public Interests and
such an obstacle to Industrial progress
may be found in the common ignorance
of the facts. and In that "everybody's
business is nobody's business" and that
inventors seem unable to cooperate so as
to make their strength felt for common
purpose, as the authors and manufactur-
ers did in the cases mentioned. This
is the most puzzling of many tdiOsyn-
If organized cooperation is mark and
test of sane civilization, into what by
gone barbaric age must inventors thus
place themselves?
The late Senator Daniel Of Virginia is
sorely missed by all inventors who are
awake to their own interests. He pushed
plan identical with that supported in
your editorial referred to, so far as to
choose a site for the new patent Office.
which he proposed to make companion
building for the Library Of Congress.
In what sharp contrast appears the ac-
ton proposed by pending House bill No.
S776 which is quite well adapted to close
the patent Office doors indefinitely, il en-
acted! 1t provides for cancellation Of any
patent, the owner Of which refuses to let
others use it freely upon payment of
royalties fixed by the commissioner Of
patents. S. J.. MACFARREN.