New-York tribune., 1919-04-01

and dyestuffs expert, maintains that
the German patents taken over by the
Alien Property Custodian and now in
the hands Of the Chemical Foundation,
Inc, do not protect the American in
dustry against the importation of
dyes. The announcement recently
made to this effect, he asserts, is al
together erroneous for these three
reasons:
"Only United States patents on the
dye or dyestuff itself, not on the pro-
cess for making it, can be used to con-
troll the import of that dye.
NEARLY all dyes now being made in
this country were covered by United
States patents before 1902. So that
the patents on those dyes are no
longer in force.
with the exception of certain sui
phur colors and the majority of vat or
true fast colors, nearly all the dyes
used in any quantity in this country in
1914 were covered by United States
patents before 1902"
The obvious conclusion from the
foregoing, Mr.. Webster contends, is
the existing United States dyestuffs
patents can be used to control the i'm
port only of the majority of vat or
true fast colors, certain sulphur col
ors and few other colors of limited
Importance; and that those patents
will give substantially no protection
to the present American dyestuff in
dustry against competition with for
eign dyes imported into this country.
Rights Conferred by Patents
"Under the United States patent
laws" he said, "a patent on dye or
dyestuff gives the holder of the patent
the right to control the manufacture,
use and sale of the certain chemical
possessing a certain amount OF car
bon, hydrogen and other elements as
sembled in a definite chemical fashion,
reacting in n certain manner to sui
phuric acid, caustic soda and other
powerful agents, having certain
physical appearance and having certain
coloring properties. This patent mo-
nopoly extends over q period of sew
enteen years. The terms 'manufact--
ure, use and sale are very broad
and enable the holder of the patent
to enjoin either an illegal manufact
urer or any commercial user of the
material made in violation of his pat
ent rights. Such being the case, there
is no question about the absolute con-
troll by the owners Of the United
States patents Of the import of dyes
covered by existing United States
patents on the dyestuffs themselves.
"But chemical patents are granted
chemical makeup, but they are also
granted on the processes or methods
whereby they are made. For example,
a dyestuf might have been first made
by adding certain acid to a certain
coal tar derivative under certain con-
ditions of temperature. Another might
discover that the same dyestuff could
be made better by adding another acid
end passing an electric current through
the combination. The inventor of this
second process would have right to
patent giving him the control OF the
manufacture of the dyestutf by this
new process. But if the dyestuff itself
were patented and if that patent were
still in force, he would have no right
even to use his new process without
permission from the owner of the pat
ent covering the dyestuff itself.
Where Process Control Fails
"There is always one process for
making a new chemical as old as the
chemical itself, so there is no way OF
preventing the manufacture of that
chemical by some process after the
patent on the chemical itself has
ceased to be in force.
"Since a United States patent on an
improved process gives the owner of
the patent the right to control the use
of that process in the United States,
it's practical value is to give him an
advantage over other manufacturers in
the United States. He could control
the use of the process in foreign
country only by owning the same
process patent in that country. He
could not control the use or sale of
the article itself in the United States
under any improved process patent.
Therefore the existing United States
process patents on processes for max
ing dyestuffs are of no use in pro-
tecting the American dyestuff industry
from competition by the import of for
eign made dyestuffs.
Gwen If United States process
patent gave the holder the legal right
to control the import of an unpatented
chemical made in another country by
that process, this legal right would be
Of little practical value in controlling
the import of dyes into the United
States, because it would be practically
impossible in mist cases to prove that
the article was made by the patented
PioNcoS 1dllGL tHdu Wy llo VI Il iH@i
process.
Old Dyes Revived
"The new American dye industry has
been developed in q hurry under great
pressure from market incompletely
supplied Naturally there have been
few, if any, new coaltar dyestutfs dis
covered and manufactured, and manu-
facturers took up old and we'll estab-
lished dyes, discovered between 1870
and 1900, covered by United States
patents granted before 1902. 1t was
easier to get chemical skill to make
them and all patent difficulties we're
avoided.
"If the world got along with such
dyestuffs up to the year 1900, it was
simple for it to get along with such
dyestuffs in period Of great stress.
The inconvenience was not 90 much to
the public in putting up with less fast
ness and less brilliancy, as to the text
lie manufacturers and dyers who had
to give UP many of the latest improved
dyes in their manufacturing.
"The first great call was for direct
black for cotton and silk, sulphur
black for cotton. and black for wool
BY the summer of 1916 direct black
and sulphur black were being made in
sufficient quantity for the United
States market and the export market
The price of direct black is now about
onetiftl what it was in the winter OF
1916. The demand for black for wool
was supplied by vegetable dyestuff
made from logwood, and the market
was oversupplied with this by the sum-