Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 24.pdf/557

 514

The Green Bag

like many owners of real estate in cities and other rapidly growing communities, he may prefer to hold it for the pur pose of having its value enhanced by the operations and improvements of holders of similar property. Furthermore, the condition of the country or immediate community may be such as not to create a demand for the particular class of property. Why should not the holder of patent property be entitled to similar privi leges and immunities? As an inventor he may wish to hold his patented inven tion until it becomes to others "a missing link in the chain of progress." PATENTS AS LEGITIMATE MONOPOLIES

Patents are the only form of absolute monopoly. And they are absolute so far as they go. In a recent decision the court said: — ithin his domain, the patentee is czar. The people must take the invention on the terms he dictates or let it alone for seventeen years. This is a necessity from the nature of the grant. Cries of restraint of trade and impairment of the freedom of sales are unavailing, because for the promotion of the useful arts the constitution and statutes authorize this very monopoly.

The possession of suitable patents is, therefore, of great importance to the manufacturer. If the manufacturer de velops an invention of value, he should patent it, even though he might not care to be able to prevent his compe titors from using it; because, if he does not patent it, someone else may patent it, and may then sue for an injunction to prevent his use of the invention, and it is much cheaper to patent an invention than to defend a suit for an infringe ment for some other person's patent. This is not at all an impossible occur rence, but has actually happened.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD RETARD WHEELS OF PROGRESS

It should be remembered in this con nection, that inventive progress is entirely evolutionary in character. One search of the U. S. Patent Office Records along any line or class of invention will demonstrate this fact. It should also be remembered that the U. S. Patent Office in the grant of patents, does not take cognizance of questions of infringe ment. These questions are left exclu sively to the federal courts. The matter for consideration in the examination of applications for patents is largely a matter of determining the patentable novelty over the "prior art" — the latter being generally disclosed by an examination of the United States and foreign patents of record. In the evolutionary character of in vention, it naturally follows that there will be generic or primary inventions and specific or secondary inventions. The inventors of the first class of in ventions are known as "pioneer inven tors" and of the second, "improvers." It necessarily follows that if the scope of the patent is commensurate with that of the "genus" invention it will be a "generic" patent, and as such will cover all subsequent inventions which amount to no more than a "species" of the "genus." In order "To promote the progress of science and useful arts," as authorized in the Constitution, the government grants patents for secondary inventions, thus encouraging "improvers," and should the claims of some earlier "live" patent be found by the patentee to cover his patented invention, if unable to make terms with the owner of such prior patents he may await the expira tion of such patent (when it becomes public property — a great contribution to progress and public welfare held in