Contributing1
Editor's
Section
H. Ward Leonard
Page
(
A S
Iquiare Dead for imiveuitoir!
By ML Wsiirdl Leonard
Asa Eiaiiaeep Wfiao Has Figgnared Largely isa'fclhie
SnadtaslHal Developmeiatl of Ulrae World
If
91
T is a common impression among those who are not faniiliar with
the origin and development of patent systems that the United
tY States Patent Office exists in order to reward meritorious inven
tors. This is an open question. There is no reason why inven
tors should have any exceptional privileges and they never have
had. But they merit a square deal, insofar as invention is the
principal factor in efficiency of production, and is largely respon
sible for the manufacturing supremacy of the United States. Hence the
important question arises: what is the best method of stimulating the
creation of the most valuable inventions and ensuring prompt disclosure?
If, as frequently asserted, a corporation, by employing men of inven
tive minds and furnishing them the best equipped laboratories, libraries
and assistants, can produce inventions of greater value than can be pro
duced by independent inventors, then the logical thing to do is to abolish
the patent system. But if it is a fact that the great inventions have always
been made by independent inventors, then the logical thing to do is to
adopt as the platform of patent reform "Back to the Constitution," and
see to it that a patent gives to the inventor the reasonable security in an
exclusive right which the Constitution intended he should have.
The practical question is how can a patentee be given reasonable pro
tection, when, for example, his
patent has been deliberately in
fringed by one of perhaps several
hundred members of an associa
tion, in which such members join
forces to furnish the money, in
fluence and legal talent needed to
make the inventor accept the terms
offered by their one representative.
Or when his patent is deliberately
appropriated by members of an
Association whose members tax
'themselves to "protect them
selves" against any inventor who
tries to assert his patent rights
against any of their members. Or
when a large manufacturing com
pany, which after combining num
erous companies and thereby se
curing the protection due to several
(thousand patents in one field of
industry, infringes scores of pat
ents of one inventor and says it is
too large to be bothered with
paying royalties.
QRVILLE WRIGHT is reported
to have said recently that
$200,000 was needed to pay for
his side of the legal fight on one
patent, and this is not very excep
tional. Evidently if it is good policy for
the United States to stimulate the
patenting of inventions by inde
pendent inventors, some way must
be found for reasonably and
promptly securing a patentee
against unscrupulous and pirat
ical infringement.
It should be born in mind that
before a patent is sustained by a
court the court must be convinced
that the patent is clearly infringed
and also that it is clearly valid.
In trying to prove that the patent
rveruhjodi
mmm n o y j
I it answers every beverage
m requirement vim, vigor, refresh-
m ment, wholesomencss.
It will satisfy you.
Demand the genuine by full name , '
Nicknames encourage substitution. ' ,
VBftw rr'TTT pon rrT a nni r-n a xyt r
ATLANTA, GA.
Whenever
you see an
Arrow tlilnl
of Coca-Cola
is invalid the wealthy infringer can go back to the origin of historic
records, and drag the inventor all over the world to meet the paid-for
testimony of false witnesses.
But as to the question of infringement of the claims it is different. The
real patent pirate is undoubtedly infringing the claims of the patent. In
fact it is customary in such cases for the pirate to stipulate the fact that he
is infringing the claims when the Buit is first started. He merely asserts
that the government erred in granting the patent and would not have
done so had the Patent Office known its business.
To meet such cases of unquestionable and deliberate infringement of
a patent which the Patent Office has said is valid and the infringer says
is invalid, a bill has been introduced in Congress by Chairman Oldfield,
of the Patent Committee. This bill provides that whenever the patentee
has established to the satisfaction of the court that the claims granted
by the Patent Office are infringed and the patentee has made a motion
for a royalty payment in the way provided for in the bill, the court shall
order that, pending the determination of the question of validity by the
court, the infringer shall pay a royalty of five per cent upon every infring
ing article he sells until he has established to the satisfaction of the court
that the Patent Office was wrong in issuing his patent to him.
uut in accepting this nve per
cent royalty the patentee waives
any further claim as to the articles
upon which the royalty is paid,
in the nature of damages and
profits, and can never make any
further claim against those articles
based upon other patents owned
or controlled by him at the time
the court grants the five per cent
royalty.
TJNDER such a modification of
the Patent Laws, the average
inventor could probably cope single
handed with the largest and most
powerful Association or Chamber
of Commerce or equivalent com
bination. And in fact the un
conscionable infringement of pat
ents would probably cease because
this five per cent royalty would
enable the inventor to pay for his
legal fight and hence such legal
fights would seldom start. A
capitalist would dare once more to
invest money in a good patent.
Inventors would be stimulated to
increased efforts.
The courts would be freed from
the clog of intentionally compli
cated and delayed patent suits and
in many cases the inventor would
become the most efficient manu
facturer in his line in the world.
One thing is very clear. Con
gress ought to either abolish the
present patent system, on the
ground that it is no longer
necessary or desirable, or else it
should make a patent an asset
instead of a liability to the patentee.
CONTENTS COPYlUOIITKn. 1014, BY THE ABBOTT & URIOOS COMPANY
ALL WRITINGS AND ILLUSTRATIONS DONE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE NATIONAL SUNDAY MAGAZINE