User:Kopiersperre/Test

A Patent Abuse. . (Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, vol. 10, No. 3, p. 2, March, 1918.) – The exigencies of the war period have led to feverish activity in many laboratories in attempts to carry out processes described in the literature and in patent specifications, chiefly in the field of organic chemistry. Within the past year we have frequently been apprised by chemists of the lack of success in the preparation of compounds by following directions, even by most careful attention to the minutest details, in the official records. Men who have experienced this difficulty stand so high that no question of lack of skill and technique can be involved, and we are forced to the conclusion that deliberate misrepresentation has been made, especially in the case of certain foreign patents. If this is true, it is extremely regrettable that the literature of chemistry is clogged with such deceit; in the case of patent specifications it is reprehensible, in that a matter of perjury is involved. The demonstration of such falsity would immediately invalidate the patent, but this is a tedious process, necessitating great amount of laboratory work and expense and loss of time in litigation.

Our patent system should be protected against impositions. This might be accomplished in one of at least three ways: First, the Patent Office might test the good faith Of all applicants for chemical patents by making greater use of existing government laboratories. It is doubtful, however, in view of the work already engaging the attention of these Federal Laboratories, whether a further tax upon their courtesy would be justifiable. Second, the Patent Office might be provided with a control laboratory of its own. The varied character of the applications for patents covering all fields of chemistry would necessitate a large, efficiently manned laboratory. This would entail considerable expense, nevertheless it would be an expenditure operating for the benefit of the entire country. Third, the Patent Office might require of the applicant a laboratory demonstration of the correctness of the specifications. This would place the burden of the proof upon the inventor, but would work no hardship upon organizations having extensive laboratories, though it might affect the man of small means.

Perhaps there are other practicable remedies. Certain it is that the abuse should be eliminated, and the first step toward this end is the demonstration of the correctness of the original premise; namely, that the Patent Office files have been befouled with false declarations. If evidence can be brought together, we are fortunately in position to place it where it will do most good, and we therefore urge all chemists who have been led up a blind alley by following the directions outlined in patents to communicate that fact to this office, designating by number and subject the misleading patent, and supplementing this by a brief exposition of the difficulties encountered. This is more than an invitation, it is an appeal, for nothing can be more vital to the future of the chemical industries than the establishment upon a firm basis of the patent system, whose raison d’être is the stimulation of the inventive genius of the nation by affording full protection of the law to those who record with it the truth concerning their discoveries.

(source)