New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-07-27
INDEPENDENT INVENTOR LUCKY
Sells Patent for Big Sum to Corpora.
ton.
To the Editor of The Tribune.

To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: According to the newspapers,
an Independent inventor has recently
mad the great good fortune TO sell one
of his inventions to a very wealthy
manufacturing company for 4 large
sum, declared to have been 100000.
Surprising the accounts of the trans
action to be substantially true, 1t Is
quite probable that it establishes a
new record, for it is doubtful If any
such price was ever before paid in
lump sum for q patent for an lnven-
ton. What thc inventor really sold
and what his yondee really bought
was the patent which had been issued
by the United States Patent Office
covering and protecting the invention.
I'm using the term "indcpcndent IN
ventor' above | mean an inventor Who
is not in the employ Of any of the
wealthy manufacturers or trusts,
practically ali CT whom insist on their
employees agreeing to turn over to
them all inventions made by the en-
ployc5 during their employment. These
mployc-inventors get little or no
benefit from their inventions excepting
their salaries, for such Inventions AS
they may originate belong to their
employers even before they are made.
This works 20 the rubllc's dsad-
vantage in two ways. for. first, il takes
from competent employees the stimulus
to inventive effort. and, second. t tends
always to the building up OF monopoly
IN the hands Of the wealthy employers.
IL is almost incOnccivablc that so
little regard should be paid to the
work that inventors have done and arc
doing and to the benefits which they
have conferred and are comforting on
society. When inventions are made
by employees of the large manufacture
ing concerns, the expenses of patent
ing the inventions and of maintaining
the patents in the courts are borne By
the employers. But when an inven-
ton is made by an independent" or
outside, inventor. these expenses Of
obtaining a patent and defending his
invention from appropriation arc TO
him practically prohibtory.
| have no opportunity here to do
more than give bricfcst outline of
the reasons why the average inGe-
pendent inventor cannot protect his
rights. AT the bottom OF All, however,
lies the influence OF wealth, often un-
scrupulously used, both in and out of
the federal courts. Every large manu-
featuring concern, almost without OK
ccption, has a we'll organized force of
lawyers and experts, backed by all the
money necessary TO BE- spent, 10 beat
down the efforts of independent in
ventors to get foothold in its
particular line Of manufactures. If
necessary to get expert opinions that
the new invention il not new, they are
obtained IN abundance by the free use
of money. IL necessary to maintain
that in some obscure quarter sub
stantially the same apparatus as that
patented by the independent inventor.
was in prior use early enough TO make
his patent void. liberal use OF the
big corporations money by its attor-
nrys brings forth tho required test
mony to that end. But the most dis
couraging feature Of the wrctchcl
system that has existed for decades is
the gross incompetcncy among federal
Judges to decide the technical matters
involved in patent suits and the
favorltism which some OF them show
toward the large business and politi-
cal influences that put them on the
bench.
The young man who sold his paten:
TO the corporation referred to at the
price mentioned above, il The reports
be true, may feel himself lucky. That
corporation could probably have
beaten him out Of half or all of that
sum had 1t determined to do so. The
fact that II had for several years
fought the owners of valuable
patented invention, who were possessed
OF sufficient rCsOurcpI to carrV tho
contest TO successful conclusion and
to win at last large judgment against
the company, was probably a moving
cause that induced IL to complete the
purchase in question.
MURRAY CORRINGTON.
New York, July Is, 1914