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
HOLLAND.
I have before me a series of valuable illustrative documents printed by
the Government of the Netherlands, which are too long to introduce here.
The movement for abolishing Patents in that country, already referred to
on pages 196-230, was consummated by a striking majority, in the First
Chamber, of no less than 29 to 1; the abolition to take effect from 1st
January next, existing rights, of course, to be respected.
ON PERPETUITY OF PATENT-RIGHT.
The following observations, abridged from a review, by M. Aug. Boudron,
of M. le Hardy de Beaulieu’s _La Propriété et sa Rente_, are from the
_Journal des Economistes_ for May:—
The author assimilates the inventor’s privileges to proprietorship of a
field. Nevertheless there is a fundamental difference between the two
kinds of property. Independently of State privileges, the originator of a
discovery may use it as his own, and even to the exclusion of all others,
provided he keep it secret, so that he shall have no competitor to
encounter; whereas the owner of a field, if he is deprived of his right,
loses all. The advantages of an invention may be enjoyed simultaneously
by many persons; the produce of a field by one only. Now for a difference
of importance affecting the interests of the public. Give the possessor
of a field his right in perpetuity, and you have circumstances the most
favourable for its yielding all the produce which it can. Not so with
the privilege of an inventor, for it essentially consists in hindering
others from bringing the methods or materials that are patented into
use. From the time of invention and first _exploitation_ the privilege
is an obstacle; it limits the amount of good that society would in its
absence enjoy. What, then, is the motive of certain States in conceding
this exclusive privilege?... The legislators who have created the right
thought that there would in consequence be a larger number of useful
inventions and improvements, and that, on the whole, society would be a
greater gainer than if there were no Patents.... As there are innumerable
instruments and processes for which Patents have been and might still be
taken, there must, if perpetuity of privilege be granted, be a prodigious
number of monopolies, and almost no operation could be performed, nothing
done, without people being obliged to pay tribute to some privileged
person. There would be a countless host of administrators like receivers
of tolls and pontages, diminishing wealth in place of creating it; the
world would soon produce too little to sustain the monopolists and their
_employés_. We thus arrive at an impossibility. But conceive all this
possible, and the world must yet miss a great number of inventions and
improvements, that would under the system of perpetuity be prevented.
This is seen by the obstacles which even privileges of limited duration
throw in the way of new inventions. In actual practice progress is often
attained only by the use of previous inventions.
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