THE LAW OF PATENTS.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 10263, 4 February 1899, Page 5

THE LAW OF PATENTS.

TO THE KDITOB OF THE PRESS. Sir, —I must ask you to allow mc to express my gratitude to "Patentee" for the result of his exertions on behalf of inventors, which you published on Saturday last. His labours are directed in old, old effort of beating back the few who strive to forge ahead; his mind is so enshrouded in the cobwebs of officialdom that he reads the intentions of others in his own narrow vein; and his inclinations have been so long harnessed to the chariot of cant that* ho cannot refrain from besmirking and grovelling to his "friend" the inventor, while he .is energetically engaged in robbing or throttling him. In all fairness to that small section of the community known, as inventors (and at whom the mob in its*ignoranee choose to jeer), cannot "Patentee" turn his mighty efforts to some other cliamiel tlian in attempting to belittle the exertions of those who are striving for the advancement of so {rood a cause. The point brought under notice most prominently, both by Mr Recce and yourself, was the granting of patents for inventions which lacked originality. It was in dealing with this item" that I evidently addled the brain of "Patentee." If he refers to the sentence in my first letter, "All applications for patents. .". . patent officer rules otherwise," he, perhaps, will now understand what I was driving at. 1 was dealing with applications for first inventions, for which grants were refused solely on the ground of want of origina'ity. The first paragraph in my letter in Saturday's issue will; I trust, make my meaning sufficiently clear.

One cannot, with any truth, c.ill a man an inventor whose only qualification is the alteration of another's invention, so that he may reap part of the harvest, any more than an. "improver" at a trade can he termed a '"master hand." Yet. it is almost a daily occurre.nce, when "something good" has been worked out, for numbars of socalled "improvements," to be fr.isted under the heading of inventions; and the who.'c tendency of the law as it reads.at'present, is to help the "improver" at the expense of the master man. "Patentee" is so imbued with this spirit that he readily grasps a loophole througn which to tiro the last paiagraph of his letter. Allowing that provisional protection is "admitted to be the most liberal provision in any patent law in the world," is no argument that it cannot be improved upon. I maintain that a first inventor should be allowed at least twelve months after the _e.il ing of his "com plete patent, within which he alone has the right to patent improvements. I did not say in my first letter "after provisional patent," but "after patent," and meant that only. It must 'ha borne in maid that numbers of inventions have taken years to perfect, and that immense sums of money have been invested in the undertakings; and yet "Patented" asserts that nine months protection is ample. It is "bosh" of this character which inventors are continually served with. Even, after an inventor has had his idea worked out sufficiently to place it before the public, it often happens that other improvements aire found necessary. Why, then, should porsoras who have never spent a penny, or devoted a mconient's thought to the matter, be allowed, by a twist of the wrist, as it were, to step into the good thing?

Take this illustration as an example of how the present; law admits of fraud. An invehitor applies for a provisional patent, and employs a mechanic to make his device. The mechanic obtains all particulars, and gets them in working order, and, before even the machine is completed, observes another, and, perhaps, better way of effecting a similar result. He dilly-dallys with his job, hajigs its completion up for six or eight months, and then puts in his own application for a provisional patent (or gets a friend to do it). The mechanic's employer has to complete his patent within the nine months, and with an untried model to <*o by. What is the result? Why, the mechanic, or his friend, has got the good thing, amd some one else the bills and experience. It is all very well to talk of upsetting the patent, but it is very rarely possible to do so. There are many other ways in which inventors have suffered the loss of inventions i by fraud ; and the "sxnart'' man received the plaudits of the public,''as well as the profits. There is' a point which Mr H. H. Rayward, in his letter, has missed in dealing with the figures relating to patents kept in force. A reference to patent journals, both of England and America, will convince anyone that hardly one appUcatioin in ten is worth* the paper it cost to make it on, much less the fees paid. Some of the applications are absolutely idiotic, while others make g°?d ppmic reading, and it takes very little effort,to oick out irom each issue the few which are reall" worth consideration. Remove such applications from the totals and you will find that the percentage of invenworthy of the name, which remain in force is very high. Trusting that "Patentee" will leave subject alone/ unless he feelstfdisposed to do something towards furthering its improvement.—Yours, etc., INVENTOR."