84 Patent Law [SENATE.] Paquet) really did not call for the papers |oughly investigated by Professor Spencer F. "Copies of all Correspondence, Petitions and other Documents addressed to the Honor able the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in no memorandum from the Minister of Justice to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, nor was there any correspondence addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but there was a report of the Minister of Justice to the Governor General here, and that, with another document not covered by the motion, were now produced. sion. Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL — I am very glad to hear the extract read. It shows that the view taken by the hon. gentleman the other day was the correct one, and is corroborated by Professor Baird's view. Does the paper say where Secretary Evarts stated this, or whether it was stated officially? It does not. Hon. Mr. POWER Hon. Dr. PAQUET I am quite p.m. satisfied. BILL INTRODUCED. Bill (F) The Senate adjourned at 3.50 p.m. PROFESSOR HIND'S CHARGES. ary Prayers and routine proceedings. Prayers and routine proceedings. IN COMMITTEE. The House resumed, in Committee of the Whole, consideration of Bill (E "An Act still further to amend The Patent Act of 1872." Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL said that he had, some days ago, in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. Senator opposite (Mr. Scott), laid upon the table of the House a schedule giving the name of the patentees who desired a renewal which it would be seen that in all cases of their patents, and other details, from: "The United States papers say that Secre- the patents had been allowed to lapse Evarts stated that Professor Hind's through some negligence, inadvertence or harges concerning the forged statistics rela- failure to comply with some of the forive to the fishery matter, have been thor-malities necessary to obtain a renewal. The cause was set forth in each case in the schedule. If there was any good reason why any of them should not be renewed, he was quite willing to defer to the opinion of the Committee on that point. He did not think there could be any objection to legislation in the direction sought for unless rights had been acquired between the expiration of the patent and the revival of it which might be granted under this Act. It had been supposed that all danger had been provided against by the 3rd clause, which was as follows:: "Nothing in this Act contained shall, in any way, affect the right of any person who, previous to the granting of the original patent, as provided by section forty-eight of "The Patent Act of 1872,"--or of any person who, since the expiration of any of the Patents in the Schedule to this Act mentioned, and previous to the date of the revival thereof under this Act, has purchased, acquired, constructed or made use of the invention forming the subject of such patent, or revived patent, to construct, use or sell the specific article, machine, manufacture or composition of matter patented, so purchased, constructed, acquired or made use of previous to the date of such revival. He thought, however, that it would be better to add something to the clause in the same direction to make its intention more clear and to provide for contingen cies which had not been guarded against in the clauses as drafted. He proposed to add the following after the words "1872": "Nor interfere with any right acquired from the patentee, or accrued before the revival of any patent, nor with any user of the subject matter of such patent before the revival." The effect would be that no person who had used the patent during the time it was Japsed could be interfered with. Still he confessed he had doubts whether, if a patent were revived, a user after that by a person who had used it before would be a contravention of the right of the patentee. The question before the Committee would seem to be whether or not it was advisable in the general interest to allow some of those persons to renew their patents after they had allowed them to expire by accident or misapprehension of the law, or through their own negligence. In one or two cases it would seem clearly to have been an inadvertence rather than negligence. The question was whether it was advisable to renew patents on any of these grounds, and, if so, whether they should all be renewed, and some rule established providing that where the negligence extended beyond a certain length of time the patent should not be renewed, and whether that language of the section which he had read with the amendment which he had also read, would be sufficient to protect any interest, whether by assignment or user that had been acquired between the expiration of the patent and its renewal. These were the main features, and it was on these he hoped to hear the views of hon. gentlemen before proceeding further to deal with the Bill. It had been suggested by the hon. Senator from Richmond that perhaps the Bill might be referred to a special committee. (Sir Alexander) had no objection to that if the principle were established. He was, however, in the hands of the Committee on that point, and as regards the subject generally. He Hon. Mr. DICKEY said that he had taken the liberty of calling the attention of the House on a former occasion to the peculiar character of this Bill. Perhaps the Committee would bear with him for a moment in still further directing their attention to what he considered to be extraordinary legislation. He was very glad to hear, from the statement just made by the leader of the House, that any criticism he might make on the Bill was taken entirely out of the category of opposition to the Government, because his hon. friend had stated the Government had no particular interest in this measure. Indeed, he was prepared to hear that statement, because he presumed the Bill, as brought up from the office of the Minister of Agriculture, had been prepared entirely in the interest of other parties than the Government. He had on a previous occasion, when criticising the patents in the schedule, assumed as a matter of course that they were patents for short terms five years and he had been told that, for aught he knew, the patents might have been for ten years, or a longer term. He found, however, on examining the list, that, in these twenty-two cases, there was only one where the patent was extended beyond five years. With this exception these were applications for the extension of patents 1 others for more than one year prior to his application. In fact, it would lead to endless conflict and litigation if patents were granted for inventions that had gone into common use. To show that this. was declared in a more clear and distinct manner, he would refer the House to the 48th section of the Patent Act, which was the one proposed to be amended by this Bill. The last part of that section was as follows: "But the patent shall not be held invalid asregards other persons by reason of such purchase, construction or acquisition, or use of the invention by the person first aforesaid, or by those to whom he may have sold the same, unless the same was purchased, constructed, or acquired, or used for a longer period than one year before the application of a patent - which circumstance would then therefor, which had expired for periods varying from 1 to 7 years. Another singular circumstance that he felt it is duty to call the attention of the Committee to was this: that of these twenty-two applications in the list before them, four appeared to be entirely unnecessary, because they were cases of parties who not only applied but who had paid in their fee before the expiration of the fifth year. He called the attention of the Committee to these several cases to show that this legislation, at all events, had been very crude, ill-digested and hasty in its character, and that many of these parties had slept on their rights for from two to six years. He thought it was a case where the House would require something more than the information they had received before they would con- have the effect of making the invention onesent for a moment to deal with this having become public and in public use." exceptional state of things. This was Now, this Bill proposes to deal with cases not an individual case of a patent that which, on their faces, were recognized by had expired after a period of, say ten the 3rd clause of the Bill, as cases where years, during the interval between last the parties had allowed their patenta to expire, and where there had been no session and this, when the parties were not in a position to ask Parliament to patents in force at all for periods of deal with it. With the exception of two from two to six years. or three, they were all cases which had had been in public use, and had become occurred from two to six or seven years public property. Should this House, by ago, and if the parties had thought pro-ful now which had been for years lawful retroactive legislation, make that unlawper to apply for a renewal of their rights, they had time enough to do so. But his objection to this legislation went behind all that these proposed amendments to the Patent Act were directly contrary to the spirit and scope of that Act. He need hardly remind the House that the object of the Patent Law was to protect parties in the use of their own inventions, and not to subject the public to prosecution and persecution for the user of articles which had been in common use. That was the principle of the Patent Law, and he would prove it by referring to the 6th section, which was as follows :— "Any person having invented any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement on any art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, not known or used by others before his invention thereof, and not being in public use or sale for more than one year previous to his application, in Canada, with the consent or allowance of the inventor thereof." Therefore, the principle of the Patent Law was that a patent ought not to be granted if the article had been used by These inventions His under the existing law? Were they going to pass a law which would place these people at the mercy of men who would have interest enough in the office of the Minister of Agriculture to get an extension of these patents? If this Bill should pass in its present shape, these parties would be at liberty to prosecute any person for using an invention which he had been using according to law for periods varying from two to six years. That was the case in a nutshell. attention had been called to this by the extraordinary language of the 3rd clause of the Bill, which protected the rights of a man who had used an article before the passage of this Bill, but did not preserve the rights of the general public, or of individuals, who might not have commenced to use it before that time; as, for instance, in case of a young man who was coming forward in life and had used one of these inventions 21 agricultural implement, for instance-and might not have been old enough to make use of it yet. His father, or those who -- a He had been in had used it before him would be pro- | his hon. friend (Mr. Dickey), which tected by this clause, but he would not clearly showed that this Bill was be. That was directly contrary to the reversal of the principle laid down by 48th section of the Patent Act, which the Patent Act, he desired to call attenprovided that after a period of one year tion to one or two points. If they were the invention became public property, told that all the cases which might fairly and was no longer the subject of pro- come within this proposition laid down tection by patent. This House was by the leader of the Government were asked to go back for six years because a included in this legislation there might man had slept upon his rights for that be some justification for the Bill, but as period, and had not attended to his busi-a matter of fact they were not. This list ness, and to make it unlawful from this did not cover all the parties who were time forth to do that which at present precluded by the omission of a day from was perfectly lawful and had been for securing a renewal of their patents, as it years. The very statement of the pro- was notorious that the business of the posal was quite sufficient to justify him Patent Office was mainly transacted in applying very strong terms to it. He through agents, solicitors, either in thought it was only necessary to call the Toronto or Ottawa. attention of the Committee to this formed by one of those gentlemen matter to show at once that this was that the rule had been regarded so arbipersonal legislation which ought certainly trary and absolute that where parties to receive very much better consideration had applied for the renewal of their from the House than they had yet an patents at the expiration of their term opportunity of giving it. Whether they and the application had been received should have such an opportunity here- too late, the answer was "it can't be after, by means of a committee or other- done, the law won't allow it." In wise, he left it to the leader of the House many cases, though the papers and to say. He thought that the hon. gen- fees had arrived only a mail or a day tleman must admit the force of the ob- too late, the agent, knowing the rules of jections which he (Mr. Dickey) had made the Department, would not think to this 3rd clause, because he had pro- it necessary to send in the application to posed further amendments; but he (Mr. the Patent Office, but would simply inDickey) called attention to the fact that form the party that he was too late. the 48th section of the Patent Act, When this was the case, the schedule did which this Bill proposed to amend, ex- not fairly cover all cases in which patents pressly provided that any article which had lapsed through inadvertence; therehad been in common use for a period of fore the effect of this legislation would be one year had become public property, to discriminate in favor of that particular and was no longer the subject of a class who did business directly with the .. patent. Therefore, he hoped that the Department. In view of all these facts, hon. gentleman would consider this mea- he did not think it was wise to proceed sure more fully before proceeding further with the Bill. The only way the diffiwith the Bill. He had made these ob-culty he had pointed out could be avoided jections in good faith, when the Bill was introduced unaccompanied by detailed information, but, rather, with the suggestion that these were recent patents, which had been taken out a few years ago, and had expired quite recently; but, when the full information was before the House, the measure, to his mind, became more objectionable than ever, and he thought that the Government ought not to press the Bill upon the House. Hon. Mr. SCOTT said that, in addition to the observation which had fallen from would be to give the Commissioners discretionary power where the application was made within a limited time after the patent had expired a month, or six months, or a year -- certainly not going beyond a year. It had been plainly pointed out by the hon. gentleman from Amherst that it would be totally subversive of the principle on which the Patent Law was based to go beyond a year. He would not have any objections himself, and he did not think it would act injuriously to the public interest where parties made use of their patents in the interim, and manufacturers should obtain a renewal by giving proof to the Commis- | would be necessary to have more evidence sioners that they were entitled to it, but of facts, which should be in the possession he thought it should only be by some of the House, than could be obtained in general clause, and not by discriminating | Committee of the Whole to arrive at in favor of particular individuals. He that conclusion. Nor could he agree could quite see that where five or six with the hon. leader of the Opposition, years had gone over it would be highly who seened to argue that the Bill was improper to revive a right that had gone not sufficiently general in its scope and into general use and was not regarded by application. In fact there appeared to the general public as an exclusive right. be a wide discrepancy of opinion between that hon. gentleman and the hon. memHon. Mr. FERRIER suggested that ber from Amherst, although neither of the Bill should be delayed. He wished them liked the Bill. The latter considto consult a friend in Montreal who was ered the Bill vicious in principle, thoroughly conversant with the working while the leader of the of the Patent Law, but he was absent seemed to think it did not Oppofrom the country, and would not be back for nine or ten days. Hon. Mr. MILLER said he thought that the hon. leader of the House would do well to postpone the Bill for some time, in view of the opinions that had been expressed by hon. gentlemen, and ultimately to adopt the suggestion which he (Mr. Miller) had thrown out when the Bill was last under consideration, of referring it to a special committee. It was, in fact, private legislation, and such legislation was never allowed to come before Parliament, unless after regular notice, as prescribed by the rules of the House, and by petition. After these formalities, all parties interested had an opportunity to state their objections to any such legislation when it came before Parliament. Therefore, as there appeared to be an impression among memhers on both sides of the House that this legislation required very grave attention before it became law, it would be wise that some discussion should now take place here as a notice to the public, and at some future day the matter should be referred to a special committee of the House. He could not, however, agree with his hon. friend from Amherst in characterizing this legislation in the manner in which he had done. There might be cases in which it would be proper for Parliament to pass such a bill as this. If it turned out on evidence before the committee that there was even one case among those enumerated in the schedule to the Bill in which it would be proper that power should be given to the Minister of Agriculture to renew a patent, it would quite justify the passing of such a bill as this, but it sition go far enough that it did not include all the cases that it should include. He (Mr. Miller) did not agree with the hon. member from Amherst in contending that this Bill was against the spirit of the Patent Act. To his mind, it was in conformity with the spirit of that Act. The object of the Patent Law was to afford protection to parties whose genius or talent had called into existence some useful invention for the service of the country, so that it might be made to produce some reward for the inventor. This Bill was merely an extension of the Patent Law as it existed on the statute book. It was intended to protect those parties who had patent rights in certain inventions, and who, through some neglect or inadvertence, had failed to renew those patents under circumstances which would entitle them to do so had their application been made in time. This appeared to him to be carrying out, in such cases as the discretion of the Department thought deserv ing of it, the application of the principle further than the present law allows. The hon. gentleman from Amherst bad also contended that this Bill was contrary to the principle of the Patent Law in so far as the original Act did not permit the issue of patents after twelve months had expired. There was no analogy between the two cases, however, because that law had application to circumstances under which patents had never been issued. Here the law was intended to apply only to cases in which patents had originally been granted, and the circumstances in connection with which justified the re-issuing of the patent for a second term. Therefore, he could not |