different from any other machine and had come to stand for the mechanical principle which distinguished that machine from other machines. So true was this that the right to manufacture the Singer Sewing Machine was not really a public right unless the manufacturer who wished to make the machine could also use the name by which that particular kind of machine was known. In the case of the Remington typewriter, there was nothing markedly distinctive in the construction of the machine. Other typewriters worked on the same general principle as the Remington, and the term "Remington" did not designate any distinct type of construction, but merely the typewriter made by a particular concern. For others to use the term would be unnecessary and misleading. The name "Remington" therefore is still held by the manufacturers of the original Remington typewriter, while the name "Singer" is open to the world.

Unfair Competition

Under the general rules of what is known as "unfair competition," or "unfair trade," a protection much akin to that afforded by trade-marks and trade-names is extended to any distinguishing feature employed in marketing a particular product, or the goods of a particular manufacturer. Thus a characteristic label may have been used to designate a particular product, or a package of a particular size, shape, or color may have been in use so long as practically to indicate its contents. Or, perhaps the combination trade-mark, trade-name, label, size, color and shape of package, distinguishes the product. Without being an exact imitation in any respect, a competing product may be so prepared as closely to resemble a product already well known to the purchasing public by these distinctive details.

Instances of this are familiar to us all. Sunshine Soap comes in a package of a certain size, shape, color, and distinguishing label. The makers of Sunshine Soap, by their long adherence to this package and by the maintenance of quantity and quality,

and by the exercise of continuing marketing ability have established a very valuable good-will, and this good-will is carried to some extent by their distinctive package. If, however, a competing Sunlight Soap comes in a package of similar shape, size, color, and with a label in the same style as that of our Sunshine Soap, in perhaps nine cases out of ten the consumer will take it without question under the impression that he is getting Sunshine Soap.

It is obvious that a competitor should not be allowed to avail himself in this way of the good-will values belonging to the manufacturers of Sunshine Soap. But the many identifying details cannot be covered broadly by governmental registration, many of them cannot be registered at all, and the rules of unfair competition must be relied upon for protection. In most cases the protection is ample.

Thus, the American Pencil Company brought out a hexagonal pencil labeled "Beats all." Another pencil company brought out a hexagonal pencil almost identical in appearance and called it "Knoxall." Suit was brought and the latter pencil was enjoined, as its manufacture and sale was held to be an attempt to trade on the good-will acquired for the "Beats all" pencil. Similarly, "I Want a Biscuit," put up in a package much resembling Uneeda Biscuit, was enjoined as an attempt to trade on the reputation of the latter biscuit. And, generally, whenever there is sufficient outward resemblance between two competing articles to cause the purchasing public to buy the one under the impression that it is obtaining the other, the article which was first in the field and which is injured by the resemblance can usually enjoin its competitor and stop its sale.

Nature of the Copyright

COPYRIGHTS

Literary, musical, and artistic productions may be protected by copyright. This protection, where possible, is of the utmost importance, but its application is too limited and too well under

stood by those interested to require extended consideration here. It is somewhat similar to the patent in its nature, securing to the copyright-owner the exclusive right "to print, reprint, publish, copy and vend" the copyrighted work, which cannot be quoted or used by others either in whole or in any material part without the permission of the copyright-owner and the payment of such royalties as he may require.

The owner of the copyright also secures the exclusive right to translate, dramatize, arrange, adapt, receive royalties on reproductions of musical compositions, etc.

The copyright is not subject to attack-unless by direct charge of wholesale plagiarism, or theft-nor, on the other hand, does it protect anything except the special publication, picture, musical composition, or other production for which it is granted. Another author or artist may, if he so desires, produce another book or picture entirely similar as to subject matter, provided only that the wording or the treatment is different. Ideas are not protected by the copyright-only the particular form in which those ideas are expressed.

There is no way to safeguard a production capable of being copyrighted, save by copyright. The exclusive right vests in the author, artist, or composer through the fact of origination, and by copyrighting his work he gives public notice that he claims and has secured such rights. If he does not copyright his work, it is held to be given to the public and may be reproduced and sold by anyone who will.

No attorney is needed to secure a copyright. The process is simple. Blanks are furnished on application by the Copyright Department of the Library of Congress with full instructions as to the formalities to be observed and as to the preparation and filing of the application. The fees are nominal-$1 for each copyright secured. The copyright extends over a period of twentyeight years and may at its expiration be renewed for another similar period.

CHAPTER XVIII

PROTECTING A PROCESS

Patent vs. Secret Process

When a process has been discovered for the manufacture of a known product at a less cost, or for the production of some new and useful product or preparation, as stated in the preceding chapter, it may usually be protected by a "process patent." To be patented it must, however, be disclosed, and when the process is of considerable value and is known only to the discoverer and his associates, it is sometimes a perplexing matter to decide whether it is better to protect it by patent or to hold and use it as a secret process. If it is patented the process appears in the patent application and is readily accessible to any competitor. If it is not patented, but operated as a secret process, anyone who gains possession of the secret, either by discovery, by spying upon the inventor, by bribery of employees, or by any other means, has the same right to its use as has the original discoverer.

It is this possibility-in many cases probability-that if it be held as a secret process it will become known to competitors, that makes it debatable whether to patent the process or to retain it as a secret. If the process is one easily discoverable by those investigating along the same general lines, or one that is perhaps suggested by the nature or appearance of the product, or that might be revealed by an analysis of it, or if the conditions are such that the preservation of the secret is difficult or impossible, the process would naturally be patented as the only feasible means for its protection. If, however, the process is intricate or outside the usual lines of investigation, or not discoverable by analysis of the product, or of such a nature that patent protection is ineffectual, it is usually the better policy to hold it as a secret

process and to risk the chance of its discovery or of its being revealed by someone in the secret.

Difficulty of Defending Process Patents

The conditions surrounding a process usually make its protection by means of a patent far more difficult than in the case of a mechanical device. Any infringement of the latter shows on its face and the mere inspection of the competing device is sufficient to disclose the fact of infringement. Thus, if an inventor devises and patents a fountain pen of new design—one that both fills and feeds more readily and more certainly than any of the present makes and puts it on the market, a competing pen cannot adopt the same mechanism without immediate discovery. The infringement proclaims itself.

In the case of a patented process, on the contrary, there is usually nothing in the finished product to show whether it is made by the patented process or by some other process. Thus, if a manufacturer of pencils were to discover a method of making artificial graphite equal to and cheaper than natural graphite, he would have a process of great value. If he patented it and shortly thereafter a competing pencil appeared containing a similar artificial graphite, the first manufacturer could not tell from an analysis or from any other examination of the competing article whether or not it was prepared by the patented process. He might be morally certain that his rival was using his process but he could not prove the infringement. The new graphite might have the same chemical composition and be identical in every other way with the graphite manufactured by the patented process, but that proves nothing-the competitor may have discovered a new method of producing the same result. The only way by which infringement could be actually proved would be by comparison of the patented process with the process employed by the competitor. This, as the competitor is under no necessity either of revealing his process or of admitting an investigator to