Arguments before the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives, conjointly with the Senate Committee on Patents, on H.R. 19853, to amend and consolidate the acts respecting copyright: June 6, 7, 8, and 9, 1906.United States. Congress. House. Committee on Patents
History
Arguments before the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives, conjointly with the Senate Committee on Patents, on H.R. 19853, to amend and consolidate the acts respecting copyright: June 6, 7, 8, and 9, 1906.
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Patents
Copyright -- United States
My client, the Automusic Perforating Company, has a plant that cost
$50,000. That mechanism is adapted to perforating rolls, and if they
should use that mechanism in perforating 500 rolls with perfect right,
and then inadvertently use that mechanism in perforating one roll that
was held to infringe, under this bill their whole plant would be
cleared out of their place and would be destroyed.
Gentlemen, that is so surprising a proposition that I presume it may
be of interest to know the origin of it. The patent laws of England
provide that, at the discretion of the court, infringing material may
be destroyed. That is because the Parliament of England is not subject
to any constitutional limitations, and can pass any kind of a law that
it pleases. Mr. Justice Gray knew more about the laws of England than
he did about the laws of America; and at one time, one of the two
times when he was deciding a patent case while he was on the bench, he
ran across an English decision in which it was held that the
infringing goods might be destroyed. And then, by way of obiter
dictum, without having the slightest occasion to do so, he wrote into
the decision an obiter dictum to the effect that that was the law of
this country. But the judges of the circuit courts know better, and
never have enforced that obiter dictum. And if they were to enforce it
they would violate two or three provisions of the Constitution, among
others that no person shall be deprived of property without due
process of law.
But the authors of this provision, taking the hint from that obiter
dictum of Justice Gray, have not only applied it to the same matter
that Judge Gray applied it to, namely, the infringing thing itself,
but to the entire plant of the infringer.
(At this point it was announced that Mr. Walker's time was up.)
Mr. WALKER. I promised to stop at the end of an hour, and I will do
so.
The CHAIRMAN. Can you finish what you desire to say regarding the
provisions of this bill in five minutes additional?
Mr. WALKER. Well, I can talk five minutes; I ought to have ten.
[Laughter.]
The CHAIRMAN. We will give you five minutes more because of the
interruptions.
Mr. WALKER. Yes.
Section 30, in respect to this matter of importations--I am now
speaking on behalf of the gentlemen, no one of whom I know, namely,
those who desire to be protected in this country against the
competition of the labor of Europe in getting up copyrighted books.
Section 30 reads:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account