The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1918-07-28

the protection Of the patent, as could
preme Court pointed out that a patentee
had a right TO prohibit others from using
the invention. that was all that he OBJ
| tanned by his patent. and that whether
he used II himself or not was exclusively
his own concern. something with which
the public had nothing at all to do.
Further, II pointed out what Is often
lost sight Of, that the monopoly OF a
patent was for only n short time, seven
teen years at most. ] may add that
even with a patented article Of great
importance the monopoly in practice
| amounts only to about ten years. where
the utmost diligence Is used 1t takes
| several years to introduce the article
| and fight the infringement suits which
inevitably arise IL the invention Is a
profitable one. This puts an entirely
different aspect upon the case from what
1t would have II the monopoly we're an
| indefinite one. like the right of your es-
teemed journal to its title.
The Continental Paper Bag case does
| not stand alone, and indeed the very
latest decision MAY 20. 1879 of the
the United Shoe Machinery case tAd-
vanced Opinions No. IA, page 540 af-
firms that case. and says:
I'VE must keep in mind the quality Of
| the right we are considering and that the
Inventor gets nothing from the law that
| he did not have before. and that the only
| effect OF his patent Is to restrain others
from deslingIw or using Its device"
! Nearly all manufacturing is carried
on under patent rights at the present
time 1t would put serious check upon
| the march of Improvement II minor
! changes in existing structures could
not be protected by letters-patent; and
still more dangerous check IL the
adoption Of an improvement threw open
to all infringers the right to use the
form OF the invention which was no
| longer marketed.
The result OF that would be that manu-
| facturers having in mind improved forms
would perfect them and hold them out
| OF use. continuing to put out the specific
| form OF the invention first patented until
| at least the original patent expired. or
was on the verge of doing so. Sporadic
cases OF that practice occur now, but It
OF American manufacturers is to i'm
prove the product as fast as possible.
| and put out the improved product also
| as fast as possible. But that would be
| no longer wise or possible IL the change
in the patent law which YOU advocate
should be brought about. Furthermore,
1t would at once and forever close the
door OF inventive opportunity to the
poor man.
| realize. OF course. that the number
OF patents held in German hands at the
present time, which are thought to keep
| free from competition valuable chemical
products not made in this country. is a
| moving consideration in the suggested
| change Experience, however. proves
that this Is largely a matter of bluff
there is no question that very large
percentage of the chemical patents
granted to them is invalid for inoper-
ativeness. and designedly so.
American chemists find that many OF
the processes supposedly protected by
patents issued to foreign inventors will
not produce the results set out in their
specifications. II Is unfortunately true
that the Patent Office is greatly re-
stricted in it's facilities and practically
speaking has no chemical laboratory
whatever. The presumption Of validity
attaching to a chemical patent at pres
en-, is only slight.
| II. instead of making changes in the
substantive law OF patents. the Congress
could be persuaded to grant adequate
equipment and sufficient increase OF
personnel to the Patent once to enable
II to test out experimentally its chemical
and metallurgical specifications so that
the examiners could speak from first
hand knowledge, ! do not doubt that a
substantial improvement in the present
situation would occur,
The change you advocate seems to me
hnwise. The patent law Is a very deli
cate and complex organism. and results
OF apparently desirable statutory changes
| IN this as in other branches OF the law
are often not at all what their propon-
ents anticipated: uide direct primaries
as a horrible example.
| T. J. JOHNSTON.
| voPx 1uIy o.