Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

al registration so that the absorption is complete in all the states affected by the Union, including the country last mentioned?

Two points of view are supported. The first contends that the effects of national registration are maintained only if the conditions on which they are founded are likewise constantly maintained. Therefore upon expiration of the rights ex lege, they must be renewed with the aid of the prescribed formalities, that-is-to-say a new inscription in the national register at the time of this expiration upon payment of a new tax.

On the contrary, the second opinion contends that independent rights, originating in the country of the prior registration and requiring renewal by administrative and fiscal measures prescribed by the interior legislation of the country, are out of the question. These rights would be incorporated formally, by a special guarantee provided by article 4bis, in the international rights and would apply ipso jure as long as the effects of the international registration exist, that-is-to-say as long as the effect of the basic registration, that of the country of origin of the trade-mark, continues to exist.

Mr. Johann Bing, writer of the periodical article in question, goes into the matter thoroughly and discusses the opinions of Jungel-Magnus, author of "Warenzeichenrecht" on this subject.

The Mentality of Inventors.

Mr. Hugo Gernsback, writing in Science and Invention for November, 1925, states that Edison has discovered but very few important things, but has invented over a thousand practical things which have been commercialized by him; in other words, according to Mr. Gernsback, an inventor is an individual who rarely makes any discoveries himself, but who takes up something that some discoverer has worked on before, and then makes it practical, which is something which the discoverer never does.

"The mentality of the average inventor is, first of all,

one of great keenness and perception. It is also one of great originality. The inventor refuses to go along the beaten path, and as a rule, finds great pleasure in doing exactly the opposite to the conventional."

Apparently, also, the inventor is always a poor business man, who must depend for commercial success on the business acumen of his associates. However, the inventor is usually so suspicious that he overreaches himself, and gets the worst of it in business dealings.

What the U. S. Patent Office Means to the Music Industries.

Commissioner Thomas E. Robertson, under the above caption, gives out an interview to "The Music Trades" of October 3, 1925, as reported by Alfred T. Marks. He traces the growth and importance of the patent and trade mark system, and emphasizes their vital relationships with business. Among other things, he notes that the musical instruments as we know them, were absolutely unknown when the U. S. patent system was inaugurated.

The Future of the British Patent Office.

In a recent issue of the Journal we published reprints of articles from "Nature" under the heading "The future of the British patent office." As a result of the original articles, considerable correspondence has been sent to "Nature," the most important of these letters being from Mr. E. Wyndham Hulme and Dr. William Martin.

Mr. Hulme, in pointing out that there are 24,028 periodicals listed in the "World List of Scientific Periodicals," remarks that an administrative search for novelty has long been an economic absurdity. In support of this he quotes a communication sent to him in 1923 from a "well-known scientific writer in Washington." "I have been wondering for some time whether the

world's patent offices are not about to break down under their own weight. Simple arithmetic shows that the possible permutations and combinations of known principles and kinds of matter are so numerous that their task is hopeless unless the definition of invention or originality is radically changed. The U. S. Patent Office is already in a badly demoralized state and far behind with is applications, and its patents have for some years been recognized as worthless in themselves, being essentially only tickets of admission to the courts of law."

Mr. Hulme points out that there are two basic principles of patent law, (a) that patents are granted in consideration of the disclosure of inventions; and (b) that they are granted for the institution of new industries. "Although both principles may fitly be recognized in a given system of patent law, they cannot be regarded as coequal. For the type of administration appropriate to (a) not only differs from, but also is even antagonistic to, that which would naturally be evolved under (b). Under (a) there must be a highly elaborated machinery for the investigation of novelty, with the result that patents will be granted with relatively narrow claims, and that the capitalist be able to buy inventions cheaply, for patents will possess little restraining power Hence official search for novelty should be restricted to secure that concurrent British patents are not granted with overlapping claims. With a simplified procedure and broader claims, which can be substantiated so soon as the patent process has been reduced to practice, capital will once more flow into native industries." Mr. Hulme does not believe that publications should be a bar to a patent application, but only comparatively recent prior use.

Dr. William Martin, in a later issue of "Nature", while agreeing in some instances with Mr. Hulme's thesis, is not in accord with him in others. He does not believe that Mr. Hulme's two basis principles (a) and (b) are necessarily antagonistic; he also does not believe

it possible to grant patents upon the strength of the setting up of a new industry as opposed to the disclosure of an invention in writing deposited in a public office.

"With respect to the granting of patents with relatively narrow claims, that necessarily and rightly follow when a search has shown that wider claims would interfere materially with the existing rights of the public. It is only just that when an inventor has added but little to the stock of public information, his monopoly rights should be proportionately reduced, and that when by an official search an inventor has been shown to be worthy of little protection, his patent rights should be virtually negligible. There is no reason, however, that when an individual has truly discovered an invention of immense and wide importance his patent, as is the case at the present day, should not be proportionately broad and his security of the highest. This means that I do not agree that when security is at highest, restraining power is necessarily at its lowest" With respect to

search for novelty to which Mr. Hulme also refers, the complaint really comes down to saying that since perfection cannot be obtained in practice, it were better to have no search at all. I cannot agree to this; and I should have thought that the more thorough the search, the more secure is the patent.

"As regards relief of the patentee from the unduly high legal standard of novelty as mentioned by Mr. Hulme, it must be remembered that members of the public have the right to employ any extant information which has not ben the subject of a patent, the term 'extant information' including the associated knowledge which is the property of the expert or operative. It can scarcely be right that a patent should be granted to one who for his own purposes selects extant information, and that the public should be restrained from utilizing what, before the patent was granted, they had a right to employ."

OF GENERAL AND PERSONAL INTEREST.

Mr. Raymond J. Norton, a junior patent examiner in Div. 47, resigned October 15, 1925. Mr. Norton, who was appointed Nov. 20, 1923, has been examining Class 188, Brakes.

Mr. Eugene Woodbury, a junior patent examiner in Div. 51, resigned October 31, 1925. Mr. Woodbury was appointed from Utah on Aug. 1, 1924, and has been examining Class 178, Telegraphy and Radiant Energy.

Mr. Gordon C. Willard, a junior patent examiner in Division 3, resigned Oct. 27, 1925. Mr. Willard, who was appointed June 28, 1924, from Mass., was examining Classes 148, 207 and 219, Metal Treatment, Plastic Metal Working, and Electric Welding, respectively. He has taken a B. S. degree at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute and is going with the General Chemical Company of New York City.

MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.

Sept. 11, 1925.

At a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Patent Office Society, held pursuant to call of the President in the Law Library at 4:30 on Sept. 11, 1925, there were present, Messrs. Adams, Eisinger, Rosa, Whitney, Babcock, Pidgeon, Stringham.

The minutes of the meeting of Aug. 14, 1925, were read and approved.

Mr. R. J. Norton (of Div. 47) was unanimously elected a member of the Executive Committee to fill the unexpired term of Mr. R. A. Philbrook.

The date of the regular meeting of the Society was fixed for Oct. 28, 1925, at 4:30 in the Second Floor Ro tunda of the Patent Office.

Authorization was given the Membership Committee to issue membership cards good from the date of issue until Dec. 31, 1926, to persons subscribing to the Journal for the calender year of 1926.

The meeting thereupon adjourned.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »