Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

is not important, should either be through the Official Gazette or the Trade-Mark Leaflet of the Patent Office which now conveys information concerning not only the issuance of Letters Patents and Certificates of Registration but also much additional information helpful to the public and to the profession.

If it be deemed presumptuous for me to offer the foregoing suggestions and recommendations for changes in a measure which has been the subject of consideration by the committees of several patent law associations, a defense will be urged upon the following grounds: first, because I have pondered over the matter so long that I cannot resist the temptation to put my ideas in print, lest, perchance, they be sound; second, because my familiarity with the viewpoint of the trade-mark registrant, particularly the registrant whose none too prosperous business compels him to seek "value received" for his registration fees and service, leads me to believe that there is an opportunity for sound criticism of the "Deposit Plan"; and, third, because my personal experience in "searching" trade-mark registrations both in the files of the Patent Office and in my own files, for my own clients and as associate counsel, convinces me that the working principles, the "mechanics", of the Deposit Plan, as it now reads, must be changed, if the new TradeMark Act is to achieve its objects.

MODERN INDUSTRY'S MID-VICTORIAN COMPANION, THE TRADE SECRET.

Writing in "Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering' for December 1, 1924, Mr. Bruce K. Brown, of the Patent Department of the Commercial Solvents Corporation, describes many of the expedients employed to preserve the integrity of trade secrets, but gives as his opinion that the trade secret is doomed, in favor of patents.

However, many chemical manufacturers still attempt

to maintain such secrets, among the methods for so doing being the following: (1) Contracts with employees; (2) physical obstruction against entrance to the plant; (3) the pass system or "guest book"; (4) warning signs; (5) inaccessible location of apparatus; (6) camouflage; (7) concentration of information; (8) division of information.

"Strangely enough, some of the devices most effective and most practical to prevent the actual dissemination of information have been regarded by the courts as positive evidence of non-secrecy when submitted as evidence of the validity of the secret. These facts and others are worthy of the attention of executives who attempt to maintain chemical trade secrets and of chemists and engineers who are possessed of information of this type."

One factor in trade secrecy which the courts do usually recognize, however, is that of the confidential employee, and courts do not hesitate to enjoin such an employee and others associated with him from disclosing or practicing the trade secret, and in some cases will award damages for past use. "But when the secret is once published to the world it is lost, for persons obtaining knowl edge of it innocently can hardly be enjoined from the use of such knowledge." If a former employee proceeds to patent the secret process of his employer, the courts may transfer the patent to the employer, but as the patent may not have been properly drawn, it may still be valueless to its rightful owner.

Physical obstructions, such as fences, "No Trespassing" signs, pass books, etc., have all proved to be ineffective against the man who really wanted the information thus guarded, and very often the courts will refuse to recognize a trade secret even with these safe-guards taken.

"The reader can readily draw his own conclusions, from the data presented, as to the merit of attempting to maintain a policy of trade secrecy in plant operation. The first and obvious rule in these matters is to patent whatever is patentable when adequate and valuable protection can be secured."

The article is well documented with references to statutes, decisions, etc.

Securing a Patent-III.

Among the various topics treated by Clayton L. Jenks in his series of articles on Inventors, Inventions and Patent Practice, in Chemical Age for November, is that of the advertising attorney who agrees to secure a patent for a fixed fee. This leads Mr. Jenks to the conclusion that it costs too much to get a patent, and that the Office procedure must be modified and simplified or "we will find in time that the Patent Office has degenerated into a registration bureau and its chief duty the making of official records of that which the inventors or their corporation assignees have settled among themselves."

An interesting case where the attorneys for the opposing sides avoided much of the usual expense in an interference suit, is cited. "In the present case, the attor neys discussed the preliminary statements and evidence in a friendly and a fair manner in the effort to decide as to who was rightfully and legally entitled to the patent. It was found that a difference of opinion arose as to the interpretation of the evidence, and it was decided to refer the matter to an arbitrator for decision. The attorneys realized that there is no one better equipped for arbitrating such a dispute than the Interference Examiner in the Patent Office, hence it was decided to stipulate the evidence and ask for a formal decision, it being agreed that no appeal would be taken from his decision.

Accordingly the preliminary statements were duly filed in the Patent Office as required by law, but instead of going to the laborious and expensive procedure of taking testimony and preparing the case in the usual way, the attorneys agreed among themselves as to what evidence was acceptable and to be submitted. By filing the evidence jointly and stipulating that it be accepted by the Interference Examiner, they have saved the major portion of the expense involved in such a proceed

ing. After thus agreeing on the facts, it is a simple matter for the attorneys to present briefs setting forth the various legal points on which a decision should be had.

"In this way, the whole problem is put up to the Patent Office in an orderly manner, and without confusion. There is no doubt but what the Interference tribunal can render its decision with far more certainty of doing justice than by following the old line procedure."

A Study in Fem nine Invention.

The Scientific American for October lists and describes some of the inventions patented by Miss Beulah Louise Henry, whom it calls the "leading woman patron of our Patent Office". Apparently Miss Henry's field is a broad one, embracing as it does, an umbrella with changeable covers; games; hair curler; ice cream freezer; pencil; electric fan shield; rubber reducing garment; and many others.

Stimulation of Research and Invention.

In the course of his address at the inauguration exercises of the Bartol Research Foundation, as reported in "Mechanical Engineering for October, Dr. D. S. Jacobus, Past-President of the A. S. M. E., made some very sane observations on the subjects of research, inventions, and patents.

"Research and invention go hand in hand. The question will come up of whether the party who is assisted by a foundation will be allowed to patent a development. Many are working on the problem of how a research fund should be administered and it would be presumptious for any single individual to propose rules except for general discussion. It is in this spirit that the following is suggested.

"1. Encourage research of a scientific character which will be generally useful. Most researches of this kind

have specific objects in view and do not lead to inventions except as an incidental result of some feature bearing on the research.

"2. Make no general restrictions respecting the patenting of inventions. Success in research comes through incentive as much as through initiative, and should an investigator be so fortunate as to develop something that is patentable and to secure a valuable patent, this will serve a most useful purpose in stimulating and encouraging others.

"3. Require periodic reports which will be held in confidence. Do not insist on publication in all cases. Insist that no matter be published except by the mutual consent of the party doing the research and of the foundation.

"4. Do not grant money for aimless research, but do not expect all researches to result in valuable contributions. Those who have strived to solve the secrets of nature know only too well that a new start must often be made and much matter discarded."

"Where there is cooperation in research it is often hard to say who is the inventor in case of a development. Where a research worker is given a very definite problem of improving, for instance, some existing thing, he should not be permitted to patent such an improvement with a view of deriving extraordinary benefit from something which he was definitely employed to do. Where patents are taken out on an improvement of the sort a definite arrangement should exist with the research worker by which the patent can be made public either by dedication by the inventor or by the research foundation which provided the facilities. Where the problem. is a general investigation of a large mass of phenomena, or where the research worker is working on a problem of his own making, then, if in connection with such an investigation he makes an invention which may have come to his mind merely as an incident to his general work, he should have the right to patent the invention as his own. Even though this feature may be an embarrassing one

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »