Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

drawings, and with specimens of ingredients and of the composition of matter, sufficient in quantity for the purpose of experiments, where the invention or discovery is of a composition of matter.

1793, s. 3, was substantially the same.

The law of

The same section of the law of 1836 requires that the inventor shall furnish a model of his invention, in all cases which admit of representation by model, of a convenient size to exhibit advantageously its several parts. This is a variation from the former act of 1793, s. 3, which required a model," provided the secretary should deem such model to be necessary."

Sec. IV. The Petition.

By the act of 1836, section 6, "Any person or persons, having discovered or 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 or their discovery or invention thereof, and not at the time of his application for a patent, in public use or on sale, with his consent or allowance, as the inventor or discoverer, and shall desire to obtain an exclusive property therein, may make application in writing to the commissioner

of patents, expressing such desire, and the commissioner, on due proceedings had, may grant a patent therefor."

The provisions of the act of 1793, s. 1, on this subject were not literally the same, though they were substantially,' for the above section is merely an expression of the construction already put upon the former act, excepting that part which directs the application to be addressed to the commissioner of patents instead of the secretary of state.

Sec. V.-THE FEE.

A patent is, as we have seen, a reward for a meritorious consideration, and a grant for a valuable one,' and the laws by which provision is made for granting these monopolies are founded on a public policy peculiar to useful inventions and discoveries. The practice of selling monopolies, or granting them, except on these grounds, was expressly abolished in England by the statute of 21 James I. c. 3, and is inconsistent with the sound principles of legislation, as at present very

See exposition of the act of 1793, by Mr. Justice Story, supra, pp. 174, 175.

2 Ch. I.

generally admitted. It is not consistent with those principles to demand any price in money from an inventor, as the whole or a part of the consideration for the exclusive privilege granted to him. And yet it is not a little remarkable that in both England and France the sum paid by the inventor is considered to be in part the price of his privilege, and is frequently so represented by the persons examined before the committee of the House of Commons in 1829.

The law of 1836, section 9, provides "that before any application for a patent shall be considered by the commissioner, the applicant shall pay into the treasury of the United States, or into any of the deposite banks to the credit of the treasury, if he be a citizen of the United States, or an alien and shall have been resident in the United States for one year next preceding, and shall have made oath of his intention to become a citizen thereof, the sum of thirty dollars; if a subject of the king of Great Britain, the sum of five hundred dollars; and all other persons, the sum of three hundred dollars. And the moneys received into the treasury under this act shall constitute a fund for the payment of the salaries of the officers and clerks, and all other expenses of the patent office."

One reason of the distinction between the fees paid

by Americans and foreigners, is, I presume, the greater fees paid for patents abroad; and the amount demanded of a subject of Great Britain is greater than that demanded of other foreigners, because a greater sum is demanded in England than in other foreign countries. Another motive may be to prevent patents being taken out by foreigners for inconsiderable inventions.

The fee is graduated upon the principle of merely defraying the expenses of the patent office out of the contributions made by the patentees. This is the utmost extent to which the exaction can be justified, and it is questionable whether it ought not to stop short of this. The granting of patents is a matter in which the public has as great an interest on one side, as patentees have on the other; and if the latter are required to defray one half of the expense of clerk hire and other expenses incidental to the executive administration of these laws, it is quite their full proportion, especially since they are put to the expense of models to be deposited in the patent office, merely for the public benefit, and not at all for their own. This fee, as fixed by the law, is not a material obstacle to the beneficial operation of the patent laws.3

3 As small as the fee is in the United States, the committee of Congress who reported the law of 1836, stated that the surplus

CHAPTER XIII.

Proceedings in issuing Patemts.

Sec. 1. Authority of Commissioner of the Patents.

2. Appeal to Examiners.

3. Conflicting Applications.

4. Signature.

5. Recording.

Sec. I.-AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PA

TENTS.

By the act of 1793, it was made the duty of the secretary of state to cause patents to be issued, the patent being submitted to the attorney general, and by him certified to be made out in conformity to the law, before being signed by the President. The law of

accruing from this fee is 152,000 dollars. The same committee report that the average annual number of patents issued from 1790 to 1800 was 26; from 1800 to 1810, 91; from 1810 to 1820, 200; and during the last ten years preceding the time of making the report, 535; and that the number in 1835 was 776; and that the whole number issued at the patent office up to March 31st, 1836, was 9,731, being more than double the number issued in France or England during the same period.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »