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
think that any abstract considerations of the kind mentioned by the
honourable member (Mr. Macfie) would induce anybody to grudge to such
a man any reward to which he might fairly be entitled, provided that
that reward could be given in a manner free from objection on other
grounds. The objections which he felt to the principle of Patents were
threefold. In the first place, you could hardly ever secure the reward
going to the right man. In the next place, you could not establish any
proportion between the public service rendered and the value of the
reward received, nominally, for that service. And, thirdly, you could
not by any arrangement that he had been able to discover, prevent very
great inconvenience and injury being inflicted upon third parties. With
regard to the first point—the difficulty of securing that the reward
should go to the right man—it must be remembered that a Patent did
not, as some people supposed, bring to the holder of it an immediate
pecuniary recompense. All that it did was to give him a right to prevent
any one else from using his invention without paying for it, and if that
Patent were infringed he was entitled to take legal proceedings. But
everybody knew that law was costly, and that Patent suits were the most
costly of all. It was notorious that Patents were continually infringed
by persons who well knew they were infringing them, but relied upon
the inability of the inventor to incur the expense of defending his
property. If a poor inventor took out a Patent, and the Patent promised
to be productive, in nine cases out of ten he was obliged to sell it to
some one who could command capital enough to defend it in a court of
law. If the Patent remained in his own hands, it was quite sure to be
infringed, and then he would probably be crushed by the law expenses. He
did not know whether it would be possible to obtain accurate information
upon this point, but he really did not think he should be exaggerating
if he said that in nine cases out of ten—probably in 99 out of 100—the
reward was obtained, not by inventors or their representatives, but by
persons who had bought the Patent on speculation and at a very low rate.
He said at a low rate, because there was a great deal of uncertainty
about such property, and until a Patent was tested by actual working you
could hardly say whether it was valuable or not. What was the practical
effect of this? Why, that a few great firms in any branch of business,
buying up at a low rate any new Patent applicable to their business, and
prepared to fight for it, could so hamper other competitors as to secure
a practical monopoly. The reward, therefore, did not, as a rule, go to
the men who, on the ground of the public service rendered by them, were
intended to receive it. As to the second point—that the reward might be
great and the public service very small—that had been dwelt upon by the
honourable and learned gentleman opposite, and little need be added to
what had been said by him.
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