That the monopoly should be only

temporary is

quite obvious, for it would be wrong to shut out all others from the advantages of a discovery of an improvement for all time in favor of the first discoverer. This would be more objectionable than the doctrine of territorial dominion in right of discovery. It would be a wrong to the community at large. It would, besides, be highly prejudicial and even dangerous to the general interest, to lock up the useful arts that may minister to the necessities and wellbeing of the great mass of society in a few hands. All laws of this description, therefore, give only a temporary monopoly. They offer a compromise between the inventor and the rest of the community, by which each party surrenders something, and it is proposed that each shall receive an equivalent.

CHAPTER IV.

General Provisions of the Patent Laws.

THE first question in devising a patent law relates to the subject for which a patent shall be granted. The British and American laws only allow of patents for a manufacture, or art, machine or composition of matter,

The

that is something done, and the monopoly extends only to the particular mode of doing it. In the investigations of a committee of the British House of Commons in 1829, some of the persons examined by the committee, were in favor of extending the privilege to a principle, the use, for instance, of the expansive force of steam as a mechanical power. notion of those in favor of thus extending the privilege, was, that if an inventor had discovered this application of the power of steam he should have the monopoly of it for the accustomed period, not only in the way particularly specified by him, but in all other modes, or in other words, his patent should be a prohibition of all use of this power for mechanical purposes during the period of the patent. But others were decidedly opposed to this extension of the exclusive privilege,' and I cannot but think that these

1 This subject is discussed at pages 11. 15. 35. 36. 39. and 76. of the Report, and perhaps in others also, which I have not noted. The report consists of a folio volume of two hundred and sixty closely printed pages. It is made up of information communicated to the committee, and opinions given, by nineteen different persons, conversant in the subject of inventions, and patent laws and patent rights in Great Britain and other countries. The persons examined were John Taylor, Davies Gilbert, John Farey, Mark Isambard Brunel, Arthur Aikin, Charles Few, Francis Abbott, William Newton, Moses Poole, Joseph Merry, Samuel Morton, Samuel Clegg, John Millington, Walter Henry Wyatt, John Macarthy, Benjamin Rotch, John Isaac Hawkins, Arthur

latter are in the right, since the production of a principle, in practical and useful application, is, in general at least, more difficult than the mere conception of the principle itself.

2

A person who has merely suggested a principle, as, for instance, the use of the magnetic power for mechanical purposes, has as yet done nothing that is actually useful to the community, unless he has demonstrated the mode of its practical execution. Why then should he who has as yet rendered the public no actual service, be invested with a monopoly which is to be a barrier for fourteen years, more or less, to the ingenuity of others who otherwise might render an actual service to the public by accomplish

Howe Holdsworth, and Thomas Aspinwall. One hundred and sixty pages of the report are taken up with the remarks, opinions and statements of these persons, the rest, being the appendix, is occupied by Mr. Farey's statement of the decisions of the British courts, and the patent laws of other countries, communicated by him to the committee. A large portion of the statements of these persons relates to the tedious and vexatious process of taking out a patent in England. All the parts of the report relating to this subject have not a great interest in the United States, except as they supply an indirect and implicit commendation of the simplicity and practical facility of the proceedings and forms in taking out American patents. The result of the investigation was the additional British patent act of 1835. This report will frequently be referred to in the present work, under the abbreviation Rep. of Comm. of Br. H. of C. 1829.

2 Statement of Mr. John Taylor. Rep. of Comm. of Br. H. of C., 1829, p. 13,

ing the more difficult task of putting his theory in practice? Perhaps, however, he has exhibited the principle in one or more modes of execution. But in this case the public may be just where they were, in respect to all other modes essentially different from his, and if he ought not to have a monopoly of the naked principle without any practical application, his monopoly ought to be confined to the practical application which he has invented. It may happen, it is true, that his practical method of applying the principle may suggest to other minds a better method. This is no doubt sometimes the case. But allowing others to avail themselves of his invention as materials, as a part of the general stock of science, to work with, and do what he has not done, limiting his monopoly to the method which he has verified by experiment, is not dealing hardly with him, since it is reasonable that he should not be entitled to an exclusive privilege of his method without specifying and publishing it, and when it has been published it fairly becomes a part of the general stock of knowledge and experience for the common use, for all purposes excepting the particular applications covered by his temporary monopoly. If however the announcement of the principle is of great public utility by opening a new field of invention to others, it is a reasonable subject of reward in some

other way than by an exclusive use.

The

very im

portance and fertility of the principle is a reason for not shutting it up by a monopoly, even for a short period.

3

Another question as to the kind of invention for which patents shall be granted relates to those which are merely introduced from abroad. The laws of England, France, the Netherlands, Austria and Spain, all grant patents to persons who introduce inventions from abroad, though they may not themselves be the inventors. M. Renouard, an able French writer on this subject, disputes the expediency of granting such patents. The persons examined before the committee of the British House of Commons, in 1829, did not object to those patents, but they were not made a subject of particular investigation, and this was in itself a tacit admission of their expediency. The laws of the United States have never granted patents except to the inventors themselves, and until 1836 patents were not granted, except by special act of congress, to any excepting citizens or residents of the country. But by the law passed that year, patents are now grantable to aliens domiciled abroad for their own in

3 Rep. of Com. of Brit. H. of C. 1829. Appendix; and see Appendix to this volume.

4 July 4th, 1836. c. 357.