JAMES C. THOROLD ROGERS. July 29. REMARKS ON A RECENT ARTICLE. The _Westminster Review_ for July contains an article on Patents. Its proofs should have been corrected with more care. In my answer to question 1947 in the Royal Commission’s Report, the word “patented” in the following the _Review_ misprints “neglected:”— As a matter of fact, patentees have patented things of so little value. And in question 1954 a worse mistake is made by substituting “_some_” for “none” in the following:— There being 400 Patents now in existence affecting your trade, none of which are made use of by you. I have right also to complain of mistakes which do not originate with the printer. The following opinions and arguments imputed to me I disclaim:— Had Mr. Macfie said this, we should not have been surprised. It closely resembles his contention that a book should be protected because it is something tangible, whereas an invention is something which, if not invisible, is in the nebulous condition of an idea. What I wrote will be found below, page 241. My argument is, that the subjects of Copyright being tangible _can_ be identified as the author’s production, and nobody else’s; and that the subjects of Patent-right being modes or plans, belong to the region of ideas which may easily occur to anybody besides the first inventor. Again: the reviewer says of Lord Stanley:— The latter, while supporting Mr. Macfie on the main issue distinctly repudiated his leading arguments. This would be strange if true, seeing I coincide in all his Lordship’s arguments. How, then, can he, twelve pages further on, say again:— As for Lord Stanley, he did not hesitate to dissent from Mr. Macfie’s arguments, while giving a qualified support to his motion. Perhaps I should object to the following representation:—