Recent discussions on the abolition of patents for inventions in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the Netherlands : $b Evidence, speeches, and papers in its favour
General
Recent discussions on the abolition of patents for inventions in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the Netherlands : $b Evidence, speeches, and papers in its favour
Patents
of commerce; but when a nation had reached so high a degree of progress
in all ingenious arts and discoveries, and in trade and commerce, as we
had, he thought that in this department, as well as in others, the system
of bounties and premiums was much more likely to be mischievous than
useful.” He then very clearly showed how the Patent system worked; how,
in the place of securing the reward to great and meritorious inventions,
it gave a monopoly to the first claimer of those minor improvements
which he classed as unmeritorious Patents, and which improvements would
necessarily be made in the ordinary progress of manufacture. As an
example of this, I may mention the manufacture of artificial manures. The
modern history of manures dates from the publication of Liebig’s book
in 1840, in which the conversion of insoluble into soluble phosphate
of lime is recommended. This suggestion has been perhaps more fruitful
in results than any other of modern times, and forms the basis of the
enormous manufacture of super-phosphate and other artificial manures. It
was patented in 1842, not by Liebig, but by Mr. Lawes; and since that
period various improvements in the manufacture have been patented, but
the real inventor has never been rewarded. There can be no doubt that
without a system of Patents all of the subsequent minor improvements
would have been made in the ordinary course of trade; and one of the
main objects of the Patent-Law, to secure a reward to the inventor, has,
in this instance, as in many others, failed of accomplishment. Then, on
the other hand, all these minor improvements, being patented, stand in
the way of further progress, and if the manufacturer wishes to adopt a
new process, or to improve his manufacture, he must do it at the peril
of litigation with some unknown person, who at some time or other has
thought fit to claim for himself a monopoly. No matter whether his
claim be good or bad, it stands in the way of improvement until it is
either disclaimed by the patentee himself or pronounced invalid in a
court of law. As an example of how, under the present system, a patentee
may create a virtual monopoly and embarrass manufacturers even when
his claims are, according to his own showing, to a very great extent
invalid, permit me to draw your attention to a Patent, No. 12,867, A.D.
1849, for compressing peat for fuel, making gas, &c., and with which I
unfortunately became acquainted, because the patentee, under another
Patent (connected, however, with the first), endeavoured to make my
firm pay him for the use of a substance in the manufacture of sulphuric
acid. Now, the patentee, Mr. F. C Hills, finding, I presume, that in its
first state his Patent was invalid, filed what is technically termed a
disclaimer, in 1853; and on comparing the original specification, which
is very long and consists of about 230 lines, I find at least one-half
is disclaimed. This Patent secured to Mr. Hills the monopoly of the
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