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
Patent brings its holder any immediate pecuniary right. He can only sue
people who infringe his Patent, and the costliness of Patent suits is
such that he is seldom able to protect himself. To make the property
worth anything, a capitalist must take it up; but the capitalist, in
doing so, stipulates for the lion’s share of the profit. Probably in
ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the reward was obtained by such
speculators, and not by inventors. This, of itself, we believe, would
not be a sufficient argument against conceding Patent-rights; but it
would certainly be sufficient, if inventors could be induced in some
less costly way to surrender their ideas to the public. Another reason
against Patents, stated by Lord Stanley—that the reward is usually but
of all proportion to the service rendered—is also a strong one, if
a better plan can be thought of; but the main reason, the injury to
third parties, is most serious. There is a great mass of well-founded
complaints as to Patents being traps for manufacturers. Improvements
and amendments in the details of machinery and manufacturing processes,
which would inevitably be come at by the manufacturers themselves, are
appropriated beforehand by inventors who do not possess in reality any
particular merit. Manufacturers, are afraid to make slight alterations,
for fear an inventor comes down upon them; but they never know but what
they may have to encounter an action for “something they have always
done.” Even inventors themselves suffer in this way. It commonly happened
that half-a-dozen men competing in the same line of business would come
almost simultaneously upon the same discovery; but if A was a week or a
fortnight before B, the latter was excluded from his own discovery. The
Patent-Law, then, not only does little real good to patentees themselves,
but a great deal of mischief to other people. Who is to decide whether
the balance of advantage to the public, through encouraging invention by
offering a rather delusive reward, exceeds the disadvantage of impeding
manufacture and preventing people from using what they themselves
discover?
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