Evening star., 1934-03-11
|SC|ENCE PRINCIPLE
| PATENTS OPPOSED
Committee Of Savants
Holds Against Property
Rights in Report.

Under present conditions "scien-
tific property" should not be patented.
A special committee of the American
Association for the Advancement Of
Science has concluded. after an ex-
haustive investigation made at the re-
quest of = subcommittee Of the Amer
ican Bar Association.
This means that q man should not
be granted any property rights in q
principle which he has discovered, al
though somebody else may obtain q
patent for practical application Of
that principle.
The committee consisted of DR.. Jo-
seph Rossman of the Patent Office,
DR.. F. G. Cottrell of the Fixed Nitro
gen Laboratory, DR.. A. F. Woods, In
charge Of scientific work of the De-
partment Of Agriculture, and DR.. A.
w. Hull of the General Electric Co.
Denies Reward Is Aim.
There has long been q complaint
among scientists that, regardless OF
importance. there is no reward for
purely scientific discovery. The re-
ward is solely to the man who makes
some practical application OF 1t. al
though this may be relatively SIM
pie matter.
In reaching its conclusion the
committee pointed out that the pat
ent laws are not primarily intended
for the reward, or even for the pro-
lection. of the inventor. These are
incidentals from which he happens to
benefit.
There appears to be no need OF
such legal protection from the stand
point Of incentive to the scientist or
public policy" says the report. THE
legal and practical difficulties in
volved in enforcing any scientific
property would eventually arouse an
unfavorable public opinion against
scientists. ewing to the difficulty OF
enforcing scientific property and the
inherent nature Of its broad monop-
oily. The results Of irksome sciei-
tific monopolies would react to the
| disadvantage of scientists and thus
defeat the very purpose for which
this proposal is made.
Moreover, the patent monopolies
existing today. although limited by
| the claims Of unexpired patents. are
extremely complex and dificult to as
| certain, except by prolonged searches
| through the patent records. Much
dissatisfaction has been expressed by
industrial manufacturers on account
Of the uncertain bounds Of industrial
| property. The superposition of sci
entific property on the existing in
dustrIal property structure would only
lead to greater confusion and uncer-
tainty and multiply the complexity OF
an already complex structure
Opposes Medical Patents.
"One Of the chief arguments /,
that scientists should receive some
reward analogous to that enjoyed by
| inventors and that it Is unfair tc
reward one and not the other. The
fallacy In this argument lies in the
assumption that patents are granted
as a reward to inventors. A study
OF our patent laws and court deci.
sions indicates that the purpose ol
patents Is to encourage the develop
| ment of our industries and not solely
to reward the inventor. The value Of
the patent monopoly consists not ir
the inducement to invention. but ir
! the protection it gives to the mar
, who commentaries inventions. The
( fear of society is that a discovery will
not be used. The value of a patent
to society Is that 1t increases the
| probability that some one will be will.
ing to use 1t. The idea underlying
the demand for scientific property
appears to be the fear that some one
will use the ideas"
In general the committee reports
against advisability of patenting any
medical discovery except in excep.
tional cases.
| The exceptions are:
| Where in introducing a medical in.
vention commercial large scale opera
tion is necessary. involving expensive
equipment and large personnel. Ir
such cases the manufacturer must bt
assured by means of patents that hi
| will not be faced by ruinous compe-
tition.
Public Should Pay Cost.
Where the expenses incurred in de.
veloping the invention were unusually
large and the funds were supplied by
individual investigators or organiza.
tions without the assistance of an!
public funds. The public should b,
willing to pay the actual cost of what
1t gets.
Where medical discovery has beer
made at a university or similar insti.
tuition having limited funds for re-
search, in order to obtain funds fol
further research which ultimately vii
inure to the public benefit.
The ethics of awarding patents Il
Government employees, the repor,
points out. is very complicated, anc
each case must be decided on it.