Part 3

Sir Mark Isambard Brunel, the eminent engineer, told the Committee of 1829:—

“I have had several Patents myself; I think that Patents are like lottery offices, where people run with great expectations, and enter anything almost.

“And if they were very cheap, there would be still more obstacles in the way of good ones. I think the expense of Patents should be pretty high in this country, or else, if it is low, you will have hundreds of Patents more yearly, and you would obstruct very much the valuable pursuits.”

That Patents are, indeed, a lottery in respect to the uncertainty whether the patentees draw a prize or a blank, I refer to the words of Mr. Curtis before the Royal Commission:—

“We have taken out a number of Patents, and frequently those to which we have attached the least importance have become the most valuable, and, on the contrary, those from which we have expected large things we have reaped comparatively no advantage.”

Mr. Coryton says in a note:—

“The opinions of the witnesses examined before the Committee of the House of Commons in 1829 were almost unanimous to the effect that Patents should not be too cheap, lest the country should be inundated with them.”

Among my private papers, I find in 1851 the Manchester Chamber of Commerce expressing the same fear in a letter to Mr. F. Hill, a portion of which I now present:—

“It is considered by this Board to be a primary axiom that every Patent granted is, during its exclusiveness, a limitation to a certain extent of the general rights of the people, and that in those Patents which have reference to manufacturing processes there may be a disturbance of the general industry of the people. This Board would, therefore, deprecate a too great facility in the obtaining of Patents. If the cost be made cheap, every trifling improvement in every process of manufacture would be secured by a Patent. In a few years no man would be able to make such improvement in his machinery, or processes, as his own experience may suggest, without infringing upon some other person’s Patent. Endless litigation would follow, and the spirit of invention in small matters would be rather checked than encouraged.”

The realisation of these fears, as well as the inconsistency of our practice with the conditions which our forefathers, more wise than the present generation, imposed, will be seen from the specimen extracts which I will now read, begging that it be remembered a very large reduction in the cost of Patents was made in 1852. The House will pardon me if it finds these extracts are not arranged with any rigid regard to order, but form a too _rudis indigestaque moles_.

The following prove that there is a natural tendency to excessive multiplication of Patents, and to the making of the same inventions, and of inventions directed to the same end, or moving on the same line, by a number of persons at or about one and the same time.

This very week you read in the papers a judgment given by the Lord Chancellor, which contains the declaration that a person in specifying an invention may be held as preventing “the loss for a year or more to the public of the fruits of the ingenuity of many minds which commonly are working together in regard to the same invention.”

The _Journal of Jurisprudence_ says well:—

“The rights of the inventor are also liable to interference of another kind. A rival manufacturer invents independently the same machine, or one involving the same principle. He is then, by natural law, at liberty to publish his invention without regard to the rights of the first inventor, seeing that he did not acquire his knowledge of its powers from the latter, and experience proves that, in point of fact, the same processes are frequently discovered by different individuals independently of each other. In an age of mechanical invention, an inventor cannot deprive the world of a new process by keeping it a secret. He can at most only retard the progress of discovery by a few years.... We submit that the fundamental principle of any legislative contract between inventors and the public should be, that the right of using the invention should be open to all Her Majesty’s subjects. Exclusive privileges, conferred for the purpose of enabling patentees to divide their profits with a few favoured manufacturing establishments, are indefensible upon any recognised principles of economy. Patents are in fact, as they are in law considered to be, trading monopolies; and the interests of the public imperatively require that, as monopolies, they should be swept away.”

Mr. Webster, Q.C., a high authority, says:—

“I mean the discovery, for instance, of some chemical property, or the application of some property, of matter of recent discovery, or a certain effect, for instance, in dyeing; that becoming known as a chemical law, then persons rush to obtain Patents for different applications and different modifications of it.”

See by my next quotations how great is the obstruction the multiplication of Patents creates, or, in the words of the Act, the “general inconvenience” they occasion.

Mr. James Meadows Rendel, Civil Engineer, in 1851:—

“During the twenty-five years that I have been in practice, I have frequently felt the inconvenience of the present state of the Patent-Law, particularly with reference to the excessive number of Patents taken out for frivolous and unimportant inventions, which I think are much more embarrassing than the Patents that apply to really important inventions.

“I have found them interfere in a way that very much embarrasses an engineer in carrying out large works, without being of the slightest advantage to the inventors, excepting that in some cases a man who takes out a Patent finds a capitalist (however frivolous the invention) who will buy the Patent, as a sort of patent-monger, who holds it, not for any useful purpose, but as a means of making claims which embarrass persons who are not prepared to dispute questions of that sort. I think that in that way many Patents are granted which are but of little benefit to the real inventor, serving only to fill the coffers of parties who only keep them to inconvenience those who might have occasion to use the particular invention in some adjunct way which was never contemplated by the inventor.

“After you have designed something that is really useful in engineering works, you are told that some part of that design interferes with some Patent granted for an entirely different purpose, and which might in itself be frivolous, but important in the new combination; and one has such a horror of the Patent-Laws, that one evades it by designing something else, perhaps as good in itself, but giving one infinite trouble, without any advantage to the holder of the Patent. I have frequently found this to be the case.”

Mr. W. S. Hale, candle manufacturer, said in 1851, in answer to the question—

“At present they are obstructions to you?—Decidedly.

“You say that, practically, you have found the existence of Patents in themselves useless—a great obstruction to the introduction of inventions which would otherwise have been of value?—Certainly.

“The great objection which I conceive many parties have to introduce real improvements arises from useless Patents. I am in treaty now for one or two which in themselves are useless, yet they contain the germ of something, and it is worth my while, if I can get them for a small sum, to purchase them; but directly you make application for a Patent of that description, it becomes very valuable all at once; the party conceives you are desirous of possessing yourself of it, and that you will be inclined to give anything for the use of it.”

In like manner Sir William Armstrong answered this question, put in 1864—

“Is it within your knowledge that considerable inconvenience does exist in those branches of business with which you are most conversant from the multiplicity of Patents?—Most certainly, and great obstruction.”

So also Mr. James Spence, of Liverpool, a well-known correspondent of the _Times_ during the American war, said—

“It is difficult for a manufacturer to move in any direction without treading on the toes of some sort of a patentee.”

Likewise Mr. Montague E. Smith, Q.C., M.P., said:—

“In several cases in which I have myself been counsel, very great inconvenience has arisen from the multiplicity of Patents which an inventor has had to wade through to see that he has not been anticipated.”

How truly did Sir W. Armstrong observe to the Commission—

“You cannot grant a monopoly without excluding other persons who are working upon the same subject.”

Again:—

“Here the State grants to an individual a monopoly, and therefore the public are at his mercy.”

Mr. J. S. Russell, who himself has taken out a good many Patents, speaks more specifically:—

“There are a great many Patents of that kind taken out for boilers of steam-engines, and boilers of steam-engines admit of a very enormous variety of shape and proportion without damaging their efficiency.... The consequence is, that I have not defended any of my own. I have never made of mine more than a mere registry of priority of invention. I have not made mine a source of money, but I have suffered in this way from Patents: I have gone on, in the course of my business, doing my ordinary work, and I have found other people taking out Patents for what I was doing without calling it an invention, and then prosecuting me under the Patent they had taken out for my own inventions, and it appears that there is nothing to prohibit them from doing that.”

This I can from experience endorse. He is then asked—

“If you were able to prove that you had been carrying on an invention, whatever it might be, at the time when the person claiming to hold a Patent for it took out his Patent, would not that relieve you from all difficulty in the matter?—It would only give me the pleasure of defending a law-suit.”

Mr. Curtis, engineer, Manchester, said:—

“Many parties in trade have made alterations without being aware of their being patented, and when they have used them for a length of time, they have found that the patentee has come upon them and made a claim for Patent-right.”

Mr. Platt, of Oldham, whom you are happy to see as a member, said:—

“I think that there is scarcely a week, certainly not a month, that passes but what we have a notice of some kind or other of things that we have never heard of in any way, and do not know of in the least, that we are infringing upon them, and the difficulty is to get at any knowledge. We may be now infringing, and may have been infringing for years, and a person may have been watching us all the time, and when he thinks that we have made a sufficient number he may come down upon us, and there is no record. A very large number of Patents are now taken out for what is termed a combination of known things, and known things for the same purpose, and the descriptions of those Patents are generally so bad that it is impossible to tell the parts that are actually patented; in matters of that kind it has become a very serious question as to conducting a large business.”

In 1851, Sir William Cubitt spoke of an inventor of filters:—

“After he began to supply his customers, he received notice from a house in Liverpool that he would be prosecuted; he received intimation of legal proceedings against him for interfering with his, the Liverpool man’s, Patent. I have some of those filters. The manufacturer of these things, who had no Patent, came to me to consult me upon the subject. I at once saw how the case stood, having regard to the specification of the Liverpool patentee, that he (the latter) had taken out a Patent for that which another man had before done, so exactly that the words of the specification and the drawings fitted the first man’s invention, which was without a Patent, therefore his Patent would have been null and void. I advised my friend to write to the patentee to inform him of the fact that he had taken up a case which he could not support, and that he himself was infringing upon the invention of the first man, who had no Patent; that brought the Liverpool man to me, I having been referred to as having one of these filters in use. I explained to him that I had had the patent filter of the other man for two or three years. Then what was to be done? I advised my friend, who was in fact one of the Ransomes, of Ipswich, to tell the Liverpool patentee if he did not come to some arrangement of a business-like nature, he himself would have to become the prosecutor, and to sue out the ‘_scire facias_’ to make him prove his Patent-right, which is an expensive legal proceeding, and very troublesome to a patentee. I believe they have since made some business arrangement; but that shows how Patents may be, and are frequently, taken out for things which have been previously invented.”

As to the bad effects of Patents, I quote again from Mr. Scott Russell:—

“The unlimited power given by a monopoly to an inventor has this practical effect at present, that when an invention has been made the subject of a Patent, everybody shrinks from it, everybody runs away from it, everybody avoids it as an unlimited evil, because the person who has the monopoly can subject you to a most expensive prosecution, and can charge you a most inconvenient sum for what you have done, and can punish you in every way for having touched his invention.”

Mr. Grove says it is natural that people should yield to the holder of the Patent, for, if

“He has a letter from a patentee saying, ‘You are infringing my Patent;’ I do not believe that the tradesman would go to the expense of litigation with the patentee, and for this reason, it is the patentee’s interest to give a very large sum of money to support his Patent. His Patent, although for a very trivial thing, may, taking the vast extent of sale, be a very lucrative affair, and therefore it is worth his while to lay out a large sum of money to support his Patent. It is not worth the while of the opponent, because he has only a little stock which affects him; the patentee has his whole interest consolidated in the Patent. All those who might oppose the Patent are a scattered body, namely, the public generally, not one of whom has any strong interest in opposing the Patent; and I believe that that has been very much worked by patentees, particularly in a small and comparatively frivolous and perhaps an all but useless invention. The public is a scattered body, not one of whom has sufficient interest to meet with equal force the patentee.”

Mr. Platt, M.P., presents the following case, to show how unprincipled people use the power which the law gives them, and how, even with a good case, if they but knew it to be so, people in business are led to succumb to extortion:—

“The fourteen years of the Patent had expired, and five years, so that it was nineteen years from the date of the Patent before the action that I now speak of was commenced. It was commenced by the parties, and I may say that the person who was the original patentee was a person of no money whatever; but he persuaded some party, I believe some lawyer, to advance some money in order to take up this case. I know that many machine-makers, rather than contest the case, absolutely paid the money—the different sums of money that were demanded of them. I came up this afternoon with a gentleman in a train from Manchester, who mentioned this case to me, and who stated that one of his own clients offered as large a sum as £2,000 in one case, to settle the matter. I found that the system was to attack the smaller men, and by that means to extract money in different ways, and there have been a number of instances in which parties have paid in that way. Although not attacked in this instance myself, a neighbour of mine was; I looked over his evidence, and I told him that I thought I could amend it very much, and I told him further that I would be a party to the expense. I said, let me take the case in hand, which I did. Now, nineteen years is a very long time for a machine, and this machine was of a very valuable kind; hundreds upon thousands had been made during the nineteen years, and if this person could have established his claim to a Patent-right, he would have made a very large sum of money, so large as to be almost incalculable. It so happened that I recollected, when it was brought to my memory, that we had made a number of those machines long before the date of that Patent, and the difficulty then was to prove that such a machine had been made, for in nineteen years, speaking of cotton machinery, such machines would probably all have been broken up, scarcely any were to be found in the country; but it so happened that in one instance a very large firm of manufacturers in Preston, of the name of Horrocks, Miller, and Co., had two or three of these machines still left. I got Mr. Miller to come up to London, and we brought one of these machines with us. It was taken into court, and in a moment their own witness admitted that this was precisely the same thing that the other parties had been paying royalty to this man for, and the case was at once abandoned by Mr. Webster, who was then conducting it.”

Sir W. Armstrong told the Commission:—

“Another great evil of the Patent system is this, that an invalid Patent really answers the purpose of protection almost as well as a valid one. I believe that there is not one Patent in ten which would bear scrutiny, and the mere name of a Patent often answers all the purpose. Nobody will face the litigation necessary to get rid of it.

“In very many cases people prefer to pay black mail rather than undergo the expense of a law-suit?—In almost all cases; I know that in my own experience, if I find that a man has a Patent which I am satisfied is not a valid one, I would rather go out of the way to avoid any conflict with him.”

So also Mr. Curtis:—

“I have in one or two cases given £200 to a party for the use of an invention in which I have told him at once that what we used was not an infringement in any shape or form; but rather than run the chance of going to a tribunal where I was fighting with a man of straw, I have consented (thinking it was prudent to do so) to pay £200.”

Mr. Woodcroft, in keeping with all this, testified—

“I know of existing Patents which are but old inventions, as old as the hills.”

The following extract from the Transactions of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science presents another illustration of the mischief the Patent system works:—

“The Patent in question having been purchased for a trifle by Mr. Foxwell, its merits were subjected to close scrutiny, and the specification being found to be defective in some respects, but possessing the quality of elasticity from the vagueness of its phraseology, it was resolved to improve it under the Disclaimer and Amendment Act. After undergoing a compound operation analogous to pruning and grafting, it was found to embrace almost every kind of shuttle sewing machine. In other words, it was hoped by the possession of this invaluable Patent to control nine-tenths of the sewing machine trade of Great Britain. Fired with this idea, Mr. Foxwell commenced legal proceedings against a well-known sewing machine manufacturer for compensation for an alleged infringement of his amended Patent, and at the third trial succeeded in driving his opponent into a compromise, whereby the sum of £4,250 was paid in liquidation of all demands. Encouraged by this success, he, through his solicitor, apprised the trade of his intention to levy royalties on the users of all needle and shuttle machines other than those manufactured by his licences, and, failing to bring many to his terms, he filed bills in Chancery against 134 defaulters.”

Mr. Abel, of Chancery-lane, in a recent pamphlet, writes thus, to show how, in self-defence, Patents require to be taken:—

“In many cases an inventor takes out Patents for immaterial improvements that he is continually making in his processes or machinery, merely for the purpose of indisputably publishing those improvements, in order thereby to prevent the chance of his being debarred from the use of the same, through a Patent being obtained for them by somebody else.”

The following statement is authenticated by Mr. Grove:—

“I had at one time great doubts about it, but things have arrived at a dead lock. The Courts now really cannot try these cases. We have at these very sittings three Patent cases made remanets because they cannot be tried; they interfere too much with other business. We have at this moment going on a Patent trial which is now in its fourth day. We have had within, I think, a week another trial of a Patent, which lasted seven, and a third which lasted five days. During the time that these Patent cases have been going on there have been heavy Patent arbitrations going on, two of which I can speak to myself; one, I think, lasted seventeen days, and the other, which involved a very simple issue, lasted six or seven days. Those arbitrations went on contemporaneously, and the cases were obliged to be tried by arbitration because the Courts could not try them; it would have occupied too much public time. While these cases have been going on several Patent cases have been also ready for argument in banco, and one has been postponed.”

On this part of the subject I again cite Mr. Platt:—

“There being an adjournment, for example, for a fortnight or three weeks, is there constantly a fresh burst of evidence to meet the difficulty raised at the last meeting?—Yes, it is so; and that prolongs the case very much; in fact, the case that I have in my mind now I have no doubt will cost the parties a sum of £4,000 or £5,000. I cannot see how it is possible for the verdict to be against them, for it has been a frivolous and vexatious proceeding from the beginning, and with the idea of extorting money.”

And Mr. Scott Russell:—

“In your experience have you not seen a great number of dishonest litigants, plaintiffs who bring actions in the way of persecution, and defendants who desire to destroy a Patent, and where one or other of the parties for the most part acts in bad faith, trying to injure his adversary in any way that he can?—I should say that the greater number of Patent cases are cases of oppression.

“Have you known cases of oppression where the patentee has been the oppressor?—Yes, frequently.