it may be surmised that something approaching chaos in business might indeed be precipitated should these proofs of equities be wiped out.

If Secretary Hoover, who has proven singularly persuasive of Congress, can induce the national legislature to provide a suitable habitation for the Patent Office he will, by this single act, have justified the merger. Additional to that, however, is the ambition of Secretary Hoover to render the Patent arm of our government articulate in behalf of the needs of American inventors and users of patented máterial. As the first move to that end he will seek to relieve the condition whereby U. S. citizens are at the mercy of all foreign powers which have "working clauses" in their patent laws, with no opportunity for retaliation by the citizens in this republic.

Instances have been multplied in recent years in which, from every consideration of costs, quantity production, etc., the owners or fabricators of inventions of U. S. origin would have preferred to centralize production in this country, but have been deterred by limitations of foreign law. The usual technique of a foreign power is to require manufacture of the patented invention within its territory on pain of forfeiture of patent rights. While U. S. firms have been thus compelled to establish branch factories in foreign countries, the laxity of the U. S. patent laws has not only relieved foreigners from the necessity of manufacturing here but has made it possible for a foreign patent owner to completely suppress his invention here, if it be made to his advantage to do so. Effort will be made at an international convention at the Hague in the autumn of 1925, to secure for the inventors and manufacturers of the United States more equitable status. Failing that, Secretary Hoover has indicated that he may recommend the rewriting of the patent laws of the United States to meet the situation. Vigorous, self-centered administration of the Patent Office, with a championing and interpretative voice in the President's Cabinet and in the committee rooms of

Congress, is counted upon to eradicate one evil from which architects, in company with other serious patrons of the Patent Office, have suffered. The congestion of recent years at the Patent Office has been measurably increased as a result of the systematic exploitation of amateur inventors. By means of energetic and adroit advertising campaigns, which have painted vividly the supposed rewards of invention, thousands of credulous persons have been incited to submit to the Patent Office socalled inventions lacking in merit as in patentability. The effect has been no net benefit to the cause of American invention but a further strain upon the channels of patent administration.

The occasion is well timed for modernization of the Patent Office in that an exhaustive survey of the needs of this institution has lately been undertaken, on request of the government, by a committee composed of representatives of the American Engineering Council, commercial organizations, associations of manufacturers and patent law bodies. Seeking means of simplifying procedure at the Patent Office and expediting the work, the committee has already made preliminary recommendations. Discouragement of undue multiplication of claims on the part of inventors is one important remedy advocated by this advisory body. Architects will be especially interested, too, in the suggestion that a system of registering or recording original designs would be preferable to the present procedure of granting design patents. Finally there is the tentative promise that a more virile administration of the Patent Office will evolve some instrumentality whereby neglected and "unworked" patents may be brought to the attention of the industries that should be interested and whereby industry at large. will be systematically appraised upon the expiration of each patent that, by lapse of monopoly, places a valuable or useful invention in the public domain.

-WALDON FAWCETT.

Editor's note.-The foregoing article is reprinted by permission from the Architectural Record for July, 1925.

A NOTABLE MASTER OF MACHINES.

(Reprinted from the New York Times.)

One whose daily walk to his office takes him past a place where a small army of workmen are digging through solid rock an enormous and deep cavity in preparation for the building of another great skyscraper finds it hard to get by the place, so fascinated is he by the mingled power and delicacy shown by the three or four big steam shovels at work there. He had not realized what wonderful machines they were, or what skill was required for their manipulation in the performance of their diversified tasks.

One man governs the many motions of each, and they are strangely docile ministers. So impressive was the art he exhibited that curiosity prompted inquiries as to the reward he received for his work. It was learned that his wage for a forty-four hour week was $71.50, with double pay for overtime.

To one to whom that work seemed beyond the doing of any except long trained specialists, the amount surprised by being small. But how many in the multitude holding jobs called "white collared" get anything like as much—or ever will, for that matter? And how vastly more interesting-how vastly worthier of hand and brain than standing behind a counter, subject to the capricious favor of customers who often do not know what they want is the activity of such a man as he. To be sure, he stands at his levers in blue overalls, and strident noises beat upon him all day long, but no man looks at him without envying him his ability and the exercise of it.

Only the man who invented the machine he operates is his better.

BOOK REVIEW.

International Trade Mark Law and Practice.

By BYFLEET G. RAVENSCROFT.

In 725 pages is condensed valuable information concerning the Trade Mark laws and practice of the 258 countries listed in the table of contents. For each country is given the date of the law but not its text. Instead is given specific information as to what is considered a registrable trade mark; who may procure registration; documents and fees required; procedure for, effect. and duration of registration; requirement for use and giving notice of registration and other like date, including the international agreements to which the country belongs and what special provision is made for registering marks of foreigners. The appendix, however, instead of digesting gives the actual text of the various International Conventions relating to Trade Marks-omitting, of course, many bilateral agreements, such as the United States has with a number of countries. The laws of no countries are given, but for some reason the text of the British Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 is included among the treaties in the appendix.

The arrangement and style are such as to give readily clear and distinct answers to the questions usually presented in considering the necessity, desirability and methods of trade mark registration in any country.

The magnitude of the labor involved in preparing the book can be glimpsed from the "Tabulated Information" filling 25 pages showing, among other things, what countries allow opposition to registration; where failure to use a mark endangers registration; where first applicant is entitled to registration and where first user is entitled. The lack of uniformity in classification of merchandise for trade mark registration purposes is clearly indicated in the various lists of classification collected in 50 pages toward the end of the volume. It is refreshing to note that at least one other country, Venezuela, has adopted the simple classification of the United States.

In such a complete book it is amazing to find that a foreigner will get no inkling that he can get protection by registering his mark in the various States, as well as in in the U. S. Patent Office. He will probably be misled to believe that marks registered under the Act of 1920 are published prior to registration and he would expect to have interference proceedings with respect to 1920 marks. No suggestion is found that a chief benefit of registration is Federal court jurisdiction and extraordinary court relief for infringement. Such lapses may lead the careful lawyer to suspect the exact accuracy of the portions devoted to other countries. Nevertheless, the book has evidences of an effort to be thorough and exact and in each instance reference is made to the local laws which can be referred to in case of doubt. No one interested in foreign trade mark protection can afford to be without the book. K. F.

CURRENT COURT DECISIONS.

MELLING vs. GORDON ET AL., (Court of Appeals, Dist. of Col., 4 Fed. (2d) 945.

This was an appeal from the decision in an interference proceeding in which priority was awarded to Gordon and Redlin. Melling had moved to dissolve the interference on the ground that Gordon and Redlin had no right to make the claims. (The question of dissolution on the ground that the claims in issue were not patentable in view of the prior art was not considered, since the question of patentability may not be raised in an appeal. on priority.)

The invention claimed was a machine for turning the cam shafts of automobile engines. Melling urged that his opponents had no right to make the claims because their machine was inoperative, and in proof thereof offered evidence to show that from 10 to 20 per cent. of the