The Rock Island Argus and daily union. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1920-1923, 1921-01-31
Frederic Haskin's Letter
Our Totterins Patent Systen.

and practical, thoagA h -.
means Of actually seeing il vort
Patents Oftea Uselesa
Altar the patent u grantei
hAps the inventor will an ~.
some other company is NAH, h.
same kind Of . device withou.
patent. and II he sues for infrisss
meat the company may BE- ~. \.
prove that it had been maxim. ~
article for some years befors -.
patent vas granted. The pats,t..
therefore. would probably and M,
he had not invented anytime ~;
inal after all, that his patent -.
invalid, and that he could NOT mai.
tain his exclusive right to mak. -.
article in question. This Ia q.
the judge said no patent Is 4 pAisr,
until it has been adjudicated
Much Of this patent litie,tio,
could be dispensed with. n -.
patent ofh"- was allowed to ve,s
ON = more thoroughly systematic
basis. For instance, a. one Az.
aminer points out. it would be ouit.
possible to comply with the stst,is
about limiting patents to inyss.
tions that have never been M.
or used before-that is to limit =.
ents to real inventions. h q.
plains that il it were made knov,
that the patent ONCE was keeni,,
. catalogue Of unpatented tnyer.
tons, the man who produced nav
device would be very apt to ana
word to the government so that the
date of his discovery would BE- al.
ficially recorded. Then, in case Of
an application for a patent on 4
similar invention, the existence al
the unpatented article would "
known. and some Investigation Of
, its status could be made.
II the examiners had more tina
they could also weed out good in.
ventions from theoretical nonsense.
One patent attorney says that four,
out of five things patented now are
for worse ways Of doing something
that is we'll done already. Forty
per cent Of patents applied for are
refused, because the principle in.
volved or the method of applying
the principle is not new, or BE-
cause it is obviously impracticable,
or because the invention Is Of no
possible use. But the average in
! ventor is . gambler, and he wants
hfs idea protected even if it has
! only one chance in a thousand Of
success. And in this he Is Otter
i abetted by his attorney. There are
, many patent attorneys who would
frankly tell client that his idea
was not worth protecting. Blu,
there are others who promote bust
ness by encouraging the inventor
in the belief that his discovery Il
as good as some on which other in
ventors have made fortunes.
One Of these inventions OF doubt
full value comes to the examine
skilfully worded by an attorney 81
that theoretically it is eligible TO
a patent. 1t is found to be new, AM
while 1t may not look like a gol,
mine In disguise to the examiner
he has no time to test Its workin,
ability or to compare it with othe
| devices for the same purpose il
use. He knows that there are
few cases where very unpromisinI
inventions have made big successes
! so he passes it, and it becomes on
more patent to be thumbed over b.
searchers. And the inventor bliss
fully sinks his money into it, no
realizing that it is liability rattle
than an asset.
! Some day We may have an indie
pendent patent department, ade
quately financed, and allowed t
operate with thorough-going efic
iency. Then there will be fewe
patents granted. less money waste
on hopeless inventions, and les
uncertainty about when q patent !
not q patent. Meantime, We hav
the foundation and a good deal 9
the superstructure for an admit
able patent system. Our earl
statesmen's plan for protecting In
ventors and boosting industris
progress has worked wonderful.
even when suffering from extrem
financial debility.