Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/758

 EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT process that is simply the function or opera tive effect of a machine is not patentable, is true only if process is taken to mean merely the function or effect produced by a machine, or not a process but an abstraction. It is also true where a process is new only in the sense that it is better performed than before by the function of a new machine. If it means that a true process is not patentable though new, when seemingly identified with the function of a machine because it can be performed in no other way than by the machine, it is un sound in principle. PATENTS (England). J. W. Gordon, in the November Law Magazine and Review (V. xxxi, p. 31), advocates " Reform of the Patent Law" showing that there are difficulties of interpre tation in the English decisions similar to those found by Mr. Whitney in our American law. He chiefly criticizes " the perplexed and un settled doctrine concerning subject matter, an illiberal and mischievous practice in the grant ing of injunctions, and a very unsatisfactory method of trying questions of fact." The first is due to a judicial interpretation requiring ingenuity in addition to novelty in an inven tion, leaving room for arbitrary decisions which counsel cannot forecast. The statute should properly have given a patent to the projector of an invention and not to an in ventor, and thus avoided this difficulty. Some confusion has resulted from an acknowledged disposition of the courts " to regard favorably a practically useful machine." Another abuse is the granting of patents to foreigners who never manufacture in Great Britain but keep the field for sale of foreign-made articles. The gradual ousting of the jury and extension of injunction, he would remedy by a jury of experts in place of the common jury and the payment of damages. PERSONS. " Action by Unborn Infant," by James M. Kerr, Central Law Journal (V. Ixi, p. 364). PRACTICE. " Justice in New York," by Willis B. Dowd in the October Albany Law Journal (V. Ixvii, p. 290,) is a criticism of the constitutional limitation of the number of judges in New York City, to which he attrib

725

utes the congestion of business and delay of justice. PRACTICE. " The Congress of Advocates at Lifege " is described by E. S. Cox-Sinclair in the November Law Magazine and Review (V. xxxi, p. 81). This was a meeting of repre sentatives of various European Bar associa tions, which discussed a number of profes sional questions in which uniformity was desired but toward which little was accom plished. A permanent international organiza tion was formed. PRACTICE (see Arbitration). PROCEDURE (see Jurisprudence, Criminal Law). PROPERTY. " Effect of Possession of Land without Recorded Title," by M. G. Mason, Virginia Law Register (V. xi, p. 455). SALES (Codification). In the November Michigan Law Review (V. iv, p. 41), Francis B. James, under the title of " Uniform State Laws Governing Negotiable Documents of Title," discusses certain sections of the pro posed codification of the law of sales. He especially objects to the provision conferring negotiability on documents of title not until after ten days from their issue. The purpose of this limitation was to prevent some common fraudulent schemes for repledging warehouse receipts and bills of lading on goods purchased on credit. The author finds these too small in number and consequence to limit the nego tiability of these documents which he thinks should be placed on the basis of other com mercial paper. "The merchants gave to the law their cus toms and usages, and now that our legislative bodies are to give to the merchant codes of mercantile law, these codes should so far as possible, embody these customs and usages freed from legal jargon and unhampered by mere legal rules except such as are based on ethical principles underlying all American jurisprudence and principles of economics underlying sane and sound commerce." STATUTES. " Defects in Legislation," by Hon. Lewis H. Machen, Virginia Law Reg ister (V. xi, p. 451).