Evening journal., 1922-03-24

by means OF them preventing Ameri-
cans from manufacturing under
them while the American trade is
supplied by importation from Ger
many
However, this proposed amend
ment would not accomplish its OBJ
iect, but. on the other hand, would
ruin the American patent system.
The bill would have a tendency to
force the Germans to work their
patents in this country.
II the invention of a patent were
important enough so that Americans
would want to use #, It would be
important enough TO make It worth
while for the Germans to work the
patent here to save It. Il may be
that the Germans could not afford
to do that at present, but the time
would come when they could and
would do 1t. 1t would not be i'm
possible for them to have a plant at
which all of such patents OF the Ger
man dye industry would be worked.
II n patent were not important
enough to Justify the Germans work
Ing it here, It would probably not
be important enough for any Ameri-
can to want TO manufacture under
II. II is quite conceivable that in
the course OF time the Germans.
under the oompulsion Of such a law
would actually manufacture on a
commercial scale in this country
/ n nd hu Of
ly contrary to the interests OF the
American chemical industry. It
would be like the peaceful penetra-
ton" which we so much resented at
the opening of the war
II the Germans could not AFFORD
to work their patents in this ooun-
try, II seems probable that they
would not patent them IN any
country, but only manufacture in
secrecy in Germany. depending
either upon tho law OF trade Sc
crets or upon secret patents. In
that event, the proposed law would
not only have failed OF its object
but would have prevented Americans
inventions through the patents. and
the privilege OF using them when
the patents had expired.
The proposed change in tho law
would, however, work immensely
more harm to America than TO
Germany, for It would-to a large
extent-defeat the fundamental
purpose OF our patent system, which
is 10 induce tho production OF in
ventions. The assumption and the
fact are that inventions would not
ordinarily be produced II It we're not
for the inducement provided by the
monopoly offered by the patent sys-
tenn. Neither an individual nor a
corporation can afford to spend the
| time and money and incur the
overhead expenses that are usually
necessary TO produce an invention OF
| any value. unless he Is assured OF
an opportunity TO reap a return, di-
rectly or indirectly. from mon
opoly Of the invention.
The path which an inventor
must travel before he can reap any
return is already so difficult that
many doubt that It is worth while
| to make inventions. Added to the
time and expense OF developing the
invention. is the question whetheE it
really will stand when used under the
stern and unsympathetic conditions
Of commercial requirements, or Will
have objections greater than It's ad-
vantages. Capital must be inter-
ested at the sacrifice OF part owner
ship in some form. The danger must
he faced that the Patent Ofhce
Search will show that all or a vital
part OF the invention is old. Ere
ouentlv. one or more lnterferences
must be fought with other claim
ants OF the invention. After the
natent Is obtained. II the invention
Is good, suits will have to be brought
10 establish Its validity and to dem
onstrate that II cannot safely be IN
fringed The inventor. therefore,
already has all the discouragements
he Is likely to face and still make
inventions.
To require that an inventor shall
either work" his invention or sell
his patent within a limited time
after his patent comes out, Is TO I'M
nose a condition which is impossi-
bile I'm very many cases. 1t is oiteh
very expensive proceeding to put
an invention on the market. There
are all too few purchasers OF patents
today and n a patent we're going 70
oxpire unless # we're worked within
two wears after its purchase the
number OF patents purchased would
he stn very much fewer. II patents
cannot be sold. there would be no
profit in making inventions and little
inducement TO do so.
There are many patents which are
not productive until the later years
Of their 17-year term, because the
technical or commercial situation is
not ready for them. All such patents
would be invalidated by the proposed
amendment to the embitterment Of
their inventors and those who had
invested money in them and the dis
couragement OF all who knew OF
Me experience.
A successful invention is often at
tained only after a development ex-
tending over a long period and pro-
tected by a considerable series OF
patents. which. as a whole, are nec-
essary to protect the fnal invention
and are therefore equivalent only to
single patent Yet n the proposed
1 working provision were enacted, the