Part 23

We readily grant the second clause of the statement. The number of great and good inventions, by comparison with the obviously trivial claims, is very small indeed; but we altogether fail to perceive what legitimate source of grievance this can be to the public. On the contrary, it seems to us demonstrable that under a competent system of Patent-Law organisation the fees accruing from these claims of trivial intrinsic import might be utilised and made to fructify. The surplus thus accruing might be used in diminution of existing Patent fees, in establishing a museum of inventions creditable to the nation and the epoch, and in other ways conducive to the development of invention in general.... Our own experience points to many cases like this; wherefore we are assured a proposition of some not wholly averse to Patents, whereby they would establish courts of preliminary investigation to determine whether any given process should be deemed worthy of patenting or not, would be altogether futile.

According to our way of viewing the case, the registration of inventive novelties should be encouraged on other grounds than that already specified. We hold the record of failures to be of, at least, equal importance to the record of successes. Anybody who has given much time to promote invention will, we are sure, coincide in our opinion, that the knowledge of what others have been unable to accomplish in some particular line of invention is one of the most likely conditions of his own success. This collateral value of failures does not seem to have been heeded by those who are most prominent amongst the advocates of Patent abolition. From matters of undisputed non-success, we pass now to the consideration of others confessedly of some value, but the importance of which is trivial. In respect to such it is argued by Mr. Macfie that they much embarrass the manufacturer by needlessly stopping the way until terms can be come to with the inventor. The plausibility of this reasoning we fail to see. Does not the assumed worthlessness of an invention of the series contemplated bar the need of coming to terms with the inventor at all? What manufacturer in his senses would treat for the use of an invention that he knows to be worthless—such foreknowledge being a postulate on which the argument is raised, and on which the objection turns? The national value of a readily-accessible and classified record of invention must be obvious to all. Those who would desire to uphold the Patent-Laws, and those who would wish to abolish them, must alike coincide in this point. We insist upon this part of the subject all the more strenuously from the conviction that the upholding the abrogation or modification of the Patent-Laws will turn, after all, on considerations of public expediency, not on considerations of right and wrong to individual inventors. This being so, the collateral value of Patent-Laws, in establishing a record of inventive progress, cannot be too prominently kept in view.

PATENT RIGHTS AND PATENT WRONGS.

Sir,—On page 279, in speaking of steel rails, you say: “Could a better result than that achieved by Mr. Bessemer, and by those who hold licences under him, have been arrived at under the ‘No-Patent’ system?” Decidedly not, for it has landed them in wealth; but I will suppose a by no means improbable case. Suppose Belgian manufacturers had secured Patent-rights in England, and demanded a royalty preventing English manufacturers from selling their steel rails, as you state, under 12_l._ per ton, when without such royalty they could be sold at 9_l._ per ton. Now, the case would stand thus: the Belgian manufacturers could be supplying the world with steel rails at 9_l._ per ton, while the English manufacturers were prevented _by their own laws for fourteen years_ from manufacturing them under 12_l._ per ton, although all the materials were lying at their doors, and both masters and men wanting the work. If England wishes to maintain her position in the trading and manufacturing world, monopolies and prejudice must be things of the past....

You will say the inventor has a right to the invention. Granted; there were no laws to prevent him from finding it out, and getting all the advantage he could out of it, and there ought not then to have been a law made to prevent any one else finding out the process or improving upon it. I cannot see the right of giving anyone the power to block the public highway of thought and enterprise. Necessity is the mother of all useful inventions, and if steel rails were required, English manufacturers would have soon found out how to make them, without a Patent Law to help them.

R. R. S.

—From the _English Mechanic_.

REPORT OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF COLOGNE ON THE PATENT QUESTION.

For the following translation I am indebted to the Hon. J. C. Heustler, of the Legislative Council of Queensland:—

The resolution to abolish Patents on inventions, arrived at by the Chamber of Commerce of Cologne, at their sitting of the 15th Sept., 1863, has been confirmed in a report to the Ministry of Commerce, as follows:—

The Patent is a monopoly, and if it has been said in its favour that it is justifiable and only temporary, it is, notwithstanding, subject to all the disadvantages in its consequences which are common to all monopolies.

Endeavours to compete in the sphere of inventions are suddenly checked by Patents, while, on the other hand, many a patentee, instead of continuing to work with zeal, and to advance in the direction commenced, simply occupies himself to watch with jealousy possible infringements of others on his monopoly during the currency of his Patent.

Consumers pay exorbitant prices during a number of years for the manufacture so patented, or receive the same in a less perfect condition than would be the case if competition had exercised its wholesome influence on the manufacture of the article in question. It may be rejoined, that nobody is forced to buy the patented article, or to make use of the patented invention; also that the common weal would profit more by the utilisation of an invention, even if burthened for a period of from five to fifteen years, than not have it in use at all.

To this it could be replied, with good reason, that with the constant activity which working minds develop upon all fields of industry, the invention of it would have been made shortly after by B, and by him possibly would have been brought to light in still greater perfection. If the invention of A, however, is patented, the inventive perfectioning of the object by B must rest until the expiration of A’s Patent.

The more an invention is to the purpose for general adaptability, the more reasonable appears the supposition that others would have arrived at the same invention.

In spite of the contrary intention, Patents proved themselves an impediment to the progress of human ingenuity, and by each newly-granted Patent an unrelenting “halt” is shouted to the competition in that direction.

On closer reflection, even persons who move in circles which, from personal interest, have hitherto used their influence to give the greatest possible stability to Patent-rights, will come to the conviction that the disadvantages outweigh by far the advantages.

The Patent system, viewed from a standpoint of political economy, produces a similar influence as the Lottery. The “grand prize” dazzles all; however, only one can have it, and the multitude of those who contributed to the solving of the problem lose very often a not inconsiderable stake in uselessly-incurred costs, and lost time and trouble.

Many have been induced by the system to rush after doubtful reward in the shape of a Patent, instead of steadily applying their ability and knowledge to regular industry.

Besides, it is not sufficient to make up one’s mind to make an invention capable of being patented; such proceedings lead to a success in the most rare cases. The most important discoveries have proceeded, on the contrary, from those who thoughtfully prosecute their regular avocations. The fear that with abolition of Patents the ingenuity of mankind would slacken, we cannot share, because the germ of progress is embodied in human nature, and because the joy over an invention made, and the satisfaction felt at a new discovery, in themselves are powerful impulses for the employment of energies in such directions. A strong proof of the correctness of this assertion the men of science furnish, whom we have to thank for the most important discoveries, in so far as the application of physical and chemical laws to industry are concerned—which have been always handed over immediately to the public with the utmost liberality. Others have based their inventions on such laws, and managed to acquire for this one or that other a Patent, and thus, to their own advantage and to the cost of the public, made an invasion of territory hardly legitimately theirs. They reaped where others had sowed.

Let us take, for instance, all the lighting apparatuses during the last twenty-five years. The different lamp contrivances during this period for which Patents have been granted by the industrial States of Europe will number several hundreds. Now, if we sift the matter, we will find that all these patented combinations are simply variations of a principle which Berzelius established and applied to his spirit-lamp.

Similar is the experience with the invention of Bunsen, who reduced the costs of the electric battery considerably, by applying a hard sort of coke in place of the platinum in Grove’s Battery.

In a still higher degree has Morse acted meritoriously. It is true, Morse, in consideration of the signal importance of his invention, has received a public reward in the shape of money, and this mode of acknowledging real merit in the province of inventions recommends itself for adoption even in individual States.

After the abolition of Patents, apart from such acknowledgments as aforesaid, very soon associations of the various interested parties who, by each discovery, would be equally benefited, will be formed for the purpose of rewarding new inventions made in accordance with indicated problems, the solution of which may be felt to be most important to them.

For State rewards only such inventions should be taken cognizance of as, according to their nature, cannot be kept secret, and are not of a kind that will ensure to the inventor an adequate reward by his own use of them.

Principles, which hitherto have not been admissible for Patents, would be likewise excluded from rewards. There could be also no premiums for new modes of manufacture, such as simpler or cheaper manufacture of materials already known, and in the same manner manufacture of new articles directly going into consumption, because, in the first case, the secret use of the invention would present an equivalent, while in the latter cases the start which the inventor has with regard to manufacturing, as well as disposal, before and over his competitors, in most cases is more than sufficient reward for the merit of having given mankind new means of satisfying human enjoyments and necessities. It was consequently a timely Convention between the States of the Zollverein, which already, under date of 21st September, 1842, acknowledged the principle that the granting of a Patent henceforth could establish no right to prohibit either the import or the sale, nor the use of articles agreeing with those patented, as far as articles of consumption are concerned, and that a right of that nature was only applicable to machinery and tools for manufacturers and artisans.[10] Accordingly, the granting of rewards would have to be restricted to inventors of useful machinery and tools, who do not use them solely in their own interest and keep their construction a secret, but, on the contrary, make them accessible to everybody by multiplication.

With such regulations as to Patent-right in force in Germany, it will be observed that here, as in other countries, the great disadvantage arises from this, that by the patenting of an invention its utilisation or trial is prohibited to home industry, while the foreigner is quite at liberty to make use of it and to bring the articles in question to market in the country where the Patent exists.

In this manner foreign industry is actually enjoying a preference, to the detriment of the industry of that country in which the Patent is granted; consequently even the patentee, through such foreign competition, loses the intended reward partially. The example furnished by the Patent on the manufacture of aniline colours in France illustrates the case. On the whole, it is not to be denied that those advantages which the Patent monopoly should guarantee are often not in harmony either with the value or the importance of the patented invention; just as often these advantages do not reach the author of the invention at all, but flow into the pockets of such people as make it a business either to purchase Patent-rights, and so work them for their own account, or in partnership with the patentee, taking care to secure for themselves the lion’s share. It is further proved by experience that insignificant and most simple inventions have often brought extraordinary advantages to the patentee, while the discoverers of important novelties (we instance only Reissel, who introduced the screw as a motor in navigation), in spite of Patent-rights, could not find gratitude nor reward for what they accomplished.

We arrive, consequently, at the conclusion, that the partly imaginary advantages of Patents are outweighed by the disadvantages attached, and that, as the industrial condition of Switzerland exemplifies, no further use of such means is any longer required in helping to elevate industry in all its branches to a very high standard, or to keep pace with the development of other countries in that direction.

[10] I cannot but think the patenting of machinery a great disadvantage to any community. Yet if importing were allowed in spite of the Patent, the exaction of heavy royalties, and of royalties graduated according to work performed (which is the greatest source of evil), would be impossible, and the disadvantage be neutralised.—R. A. M.

EXTRACTS FROM M. VERMEIRE.

After most of this _fasciculus_ is in type, I am favoured with a copy of M. Vermeire’s “Le Libre Travail,” Brussels, 1864, from which I subjoin three extracts.

The first, a noble passage quoted by that gentleman from M. Bastiat’s “Harmonies Economiques:”—

“C’est la concurrence qui fait tomber dans le domains commun toutes les conquêtes dont le génie de chaque siècle accroît le trésor des générations qui le suivent. Tant qu’elle n’est pas intervenue, tant que celui qui a utilisé un agent naturel est maître de son secret, son agent naturel est gratuit sans doute, mais il n’est pas encore commun; la conquête est réalisée, mais elle l’est au profit d’un seul homme ou d’une seule classe. Elle n’est pas encore un bienfait pour l’humanité entière. Si les choses devaient rester ainsi avec toute invention, un principe d’inégalité indéfinie s’introduirait dans le monde; mais il n’en est pas ainsi, Dieu, qui a prodigué a toutes ses créatures la chaleur, la lumière, la gravitation, l’air, l’eau, la terre, les merveilles de la vie végétale, l’électricité et tant d’autres bienfaits innombrables, Dieu, qui a mis dans l’individualité _l’intérêt personnel_ qui, comme un aimant, attire toujours tout à lui, Dieu, dis-je, a placé aussi au sein de l’ordre social un autre ressort anquel il a confié le soin de conserver à ses bienfaits leur destination primitive, la gratuité, la communauté. Ce ressort, c’est la concurrence.

“Ainsi l’intérêt personnel est cette indomptable force individualiste qui nous fait chercher le progrès qui nous le fait découvrir, qui nous y pousse l’aiguillon dans le flanc, mais qui nous porte aussi a le monopoliser. La concurrence est cette force humanitaire non moins indomptable qui arrache le progrès, à mesure qu’il le réalise, des mains de l’individualité, pour en faire l’héritage commun de la grande famille humaine. Ces deux forces qu’on peut critiquer, quand on les considère isolément, constituent dans leur ensemble, par le jeu de leurs combinaisons, l’harmonie sociale.

“Et, pour le dire en passant, il n’est pas surprenant que l’individualité, représentée par l’intérêt de l’homme en tant que producteur, s’insurge depuis le commencement du monde contre la concurrence, qu’elle la réprouve, qu’elle cherche à la détruire, appelant à son aide la force, la ruse, le privilége, le sophisme, la restriction, la protection gouvernementale, le monopole.”

The second, portion of an interesting letter by M. Paillottet, éditeur-commentateur of Bastiat’s works, (written in May, 1863):—

“Cette connaissance, résultat de son travail, est pour toujours à lui; nul ne peut la lui enlever ni ne doit l’empêcher de s’en servir.

“Seulement, comme la nature permet à d’autres hommes de se livrer à la même recherche, qu’elle les y excite et souvent même leur en fait une nécessité, le jour doit arriver où la notion que cet homme possédait seul est aussi possédée par d’autres. Ce jour-là, je dis que le premier inventeur n’a plus seul le droit de se servir d’une notion qu’il n’est plus seul à posséder. Prétendez-vous que je le dépouille du résultat de son travail? J’ai à vous répondre: Si je dépouille le premier, vous, vous dépouillez le second, le troisième, le centième inventeur peut-être; si je dépouille le Chinois, vous, vous dépouillez Guttemberg!

“Un mot maintenant sur le droit à la réciprocité de services.

“Je crois fermement, avec Bastiat, que ‘la véritable et équitable loi des hommes, c’est: Echange _librement débattu_ de service contre service.’

“Si un inventeur me rend service, je lui dois un service équivalent; Dieu me garde d’en disconvenir. Mas de même que je n’exige pas de l’inventeur ses services et ne l’oblige pas à en recevoir de moi, j’entends qu’il n’exige pas les miens et ne m’impose pas les siens. Entre lui et moi, l’échange doit être précédé d’un libre débat amenant le consentement des deux parties. M. Le Hardy de Beaulieu oublie ou supprime la nécessité du libre débat.”

The third, a narrative by my able and ardent Belgian fellow-labourer in this great cause, the Abolition of Patents, M. Vermeire himself, to whose work I refer readers. He will allow me to say I impute it to no deficiency in courtesy on his part that it escaped earlier and due notice. He there gives the Chambers of Commerce of this kingdom credit for opinions which they have not generally embraced up to this hour:—

“M. Eugène Flachat attaque la loi des brevets comme une _lépre industrielle_. M. Arthur Legrand ne critique pas moins vivement cette législation surannée ainsi que M. Michel Chevalier, que l’on peut considérer, à juste titre, comme le chef des économistes français.

“Quand l’opinion de ces hommes érudits me fut connue je n’hésitai plus et je publiai l’exposé de ma doctrine du _Libre travail_ dans l’_Economiste Belge_ du 28 Mars, 1863.—Plus tard M. Macfie, president de la Chambre de Commerce de Liverpool, fit connaître ses idées sur la matière et le congrès des économistes allemands réuni à Dresde en Septembre, 1863, émit la résolution suivante qui fut adoptée à une forte majorité:

“‘Considérant que les brevets d’invention n’encouragent pas les progrès des inventions et mettent plutôt obstacle à la réalisation de celles-ci.

“‘Considérant, que les brevets d’invention entravent plutôt qu’ils ne favorisent la prompte exploitation des inventions utiles et qu’ils ne sont pas un mode convenable de récompense.

“‘Le congrès a résolu que les brevets d’invention sont nuisibles au développement de la prospérité publique.’

“Cet avis des hommes de la science a été écouté en Allemagne par les hommes de la pratique; car sur les 47 Chambres de Commerce que renferme la Prusse, 31 viennent de se prononcer pour l’abolition des brevets d’invention d’après ce que je viens de lire dans les journaux, au moment même où j’écris ces lignes.—

“_Le libre travail_ qui fut suivi, de mon _Examen critique de la garantie légale des modèles et dessins de fabrique_ provoqua une ardente discussion,” &c.

MOVEMENTS IN GERMANY, BELGIUM, AND HOLLAND.

A Belgian _projet de loi_ in favour of copyright of models and designs in manufacture, having been defeated, in consequence, as is alleged, of M. Vermeire’s efforts through the press and otherwise, we are told—

“This fact demonstrates once more that in Belgium, as everywhere else, opinions in favour of intellectual property within the domain of industry are declining, and that so far from legislation tending in the direction of giving such property increased proportions, it will soon be proposed to demolish entirely the superannuated legislation which interposes so many and so serious obstacles to the progress of industrial operations.

“The tactics of the partisans of such property consist in identifying or assimilating it with material property. This similarity permits the conclusions and deductions to be drawn which form the basis of Patent legislation.

“The pretended identity or similarity has been completely overthrown by M. Vermeire in his ‘Le Libre Travail.’ His ‘Examen Critique de la Garantie Légale des Modèles et Dessins de Fabrique’ deals a fresh blow against the confounding of property in a thing and property in an idea.”

EXTRACT OF LETTER, BRUSSELS, JUNE 11, 1869.

There is in Belgium, as in England and all other countries, a feeling antagonistic to Patent-rights. It is even shared in by many eminent political economists. I think, however, I may venture to assert that in this country the Government, far from participating in this feeling, would rather be inclined, in the event of a revision of the Patent-Laws, to secure in a more effectual way the rights of inventors.

GERMANY.

EXTRACT FROM LETTER OF AN EMINENT HOUSE IN COLOGNE.

Although we think it rather difficult to form a general opinion on this matter, we still believe that most Industrials would welcome abolition of Patents for Inventions. The Cologne Chamber of Commerce expressed, in September, 1863, its opinion in the same sense. German legislation regarding Patents will probably be reformed. A proposition made in this direction by Count Bismarck to the Bundesrath, contained in the “Annalen des Norddeutschen Bundes,” by Dr. George Hirth, 1ster Heft Jahrgang, 1869, page 34, 42, II., would interest you much, as it coincides, we believe, with your motion. The latest publications in German literature on the subject are Klostermann “Die Patents Gesetzgebung aller Lander,” Berlin, 1869; Barthel “Die Patent-frage,” Leipzig, 1869.

EXTRACT FROM “DIE PATENTS GESETZGEBUNG ALLER LANDER,” BY DR. R. KLOSTERMANN (BERLIN, 1869).

A short time since, in the course of the present decade, the public has spoken out, following numerous and important persons who wished the entire abolition of Patents for inventions, because they allege that the existence of such is incompatible with the free-trade movements. They said that such impede industry instead of advancing it; that the claim of the first inventor to a monopoly is untenable; that discovery is not the work of one man, but the ripe fruit of industrial development.