public for use, then this section would not be required, because the sale of the article would constitute an infringement; but in cases where the product of the machine, or the composition of matter, constitutes the thing to be distributed to the public, then the sale of such articles would not be an infringement; therefore the provisions of this section become absolutely necessary for the protection of the inventor.

SECTION 17.

This section provides for the extension of time on patents. In order that the subject may be clearly understood, it is necessary to give a view of the operation and effect produced heretofore, by the extension of time on patents, in connection with the infringement of patents by those who have obtained subsequent patents for the same thing.

The Blanchard Machine for turning irregular forms, is a fair illustration of the operations of pirates, to evade a patent. This invention is designed for working wood, or other mate rials, and consists in a self-operating machine, which will produce the exact form, shape and likeness of any model or pattern which may be put into the machine. The inventor should "have claimed the discovery of a new art, for such is the result produced. The combination of the several parts which he employs, are of the most simple description, consequently he produces the most effectual and valuable combination of the several parts that can be applied to produce the object or result designed; but he, in common with all other originators of valuable inventions, has been greatly troubled by pirates, who call themselves inventors, and who have made and patented several machines more complicated and less effec tive to produce the same result, and using the principal parts and methods of action which constitute Blanchard's invention. He has been singularly fortunate in convincing Congress of the justice of his claims to protection, and that body has renewed his patent, from time to time, to the extent of

two years. This is perfectly right and just, and others have equally just claims to extension of time on their patents, but have not been so successful in obtaining justice from Congress.

We will now take a view of the other side of the question. The rights granted by an extension of time, on patents, are

so imperfectly defined in the law, that the same point has been decided differently by different Courts. The law was unquestionably designed to grant the inventor further time to put his invention into more extensive use, and thereby receive a further compensation for the additional benefit he might bestow on the public; but not to claim any additional pay of any one for the continuation of the use of any machine for which he

Continuation of Sec. 16.

Cases might arise where the importer was not aware of infringing a patent; and in such cases the court would undoubtedly assess no more damages than merely to transfer the profits of the importer to the inventor; but in case the importer should continue to infringe the patent, after being duly notified of the fact, then the court should assess three-fold damages. It may be thought by some that it would be difficult to obtain sufficient evidence in such cases to convict the importer: it should, however, be borne in mind that it is incumbent on the prosecuting parties to produce the necessary evidence, and that privilege is all that the Government can grant, and it is all that inventors ask for in such cases.

who have previously paid for the right to use the invention, and have procured an expensive machine, and erected a building solely for the purpose of operating it, together with the cost

The Commissioner of Patents, in his Report for the year 1845, called the attention of Congress to the subject, and refers to the decisions as follows: "In the Eastern Circuit, it was held by the late lamented Justice Story, that the benefit of the extension did not extend to assignees and grantees; and the distinguished Chief Justice of the United States has held just the contrary in the Maryland Circuit."

public for use, then this section would not be required, because the sale of the article would constitute an infringement; but in cases where the product of the machine, or the composition of matter, constitutes the thing to be distributed to the public, then the sale of such articles would not be an infringement; therefore the provisions of this section become abso

tion. He has been singularly fortunate in convincing Congress of the justice of his claims to protection, and that body has renewed his patent, from time to time, to the extent of

two years. This is perfectly right and just, and others have equally just claims to extension of time on their patents, but have not been so successful in obtaining justice from Congress.

We will now take a view of the other side of the question. The rights granted by an extension of time, on patents, are

so imperfectly defined in the law, that the same point has been decided differently by different Courts. The law was unquestionably designed to grant the inventor further time to put his invention into more extensive use, and thereby receive a further compensation for the additional benefit he might bestow on the public; but not to claim any additional pay of any one for the continuation of the use of any machine for which he had previously been paid.

After the extension of Blanchard's patent, he adopted a new and different course of management. He did not sell the right to use the invention for a definite sum, but charged a small fee for every article produced by each and every machine, whether the machines were put in use before or after the extension of his patent. This course would be just and right in respect to machines put into use after the extension of his patent; but when he claims that he can tax the product of his machines for which he had previously sold the right of use, he claims additional pay for that for which he has previously been paid.

It is very evident, that the extension law was not designed to grant such a right; neither would such a right be strict jus tice, notwithstanding the public have been actually benefited an hundred fold beyond what the inventor has received.

The proceedings of the owners of the Woodworth Planing Machine patent, are somewhat similar to Blanchard's operations, but rather more bold and barefaced in their injustice. They do not tax the product of the machine, as Blanchard does, but they claim that they have a right granted, by the extension, to stop the use of all machines in use at the time the extension was granted, unless an additional fee is paid for the right to continue the use of the invention, for the term of the extension. Those who use the machines generally are not familiar with the patent law, or the true rights of inventors, consequently they believe that the truth is told to them; thus those who have previously paid for the right to use the invention, and have procured an expensive machine, and erected a building solely for the purpose of operating it, together with the cost

"In

The Commissioner of Patents, in his Report for the year 1845, called the attention of Congress to the subject, and refers to the decisions as follows: the Eastern Circuit, it was held by the late lamented Justice Story, that the benefit of the extension did not extend to assignees and grantees; and the distinguished Chief Justice of the United States has held just the contrary in the Maryland Circuit."

of steam or water-power, readily see that they would be subjected to a great loss, if they were deprived of the use of the inven tion; not only would they suffer a loss in the diminished value of their property, but the business which they had adopted would be taken from them. Thus, through their ignorance of their own rights in the case, they are induced to pay an enormous fee for the right to continue the use of the invention. If any one has a machine in use at the time of the extension, and desires to hold the exclusive right to the same territory which he formerly held, he must buy that right; but if such right is held too high, he is not under the necessity of buying it, for the purpose of continuing the use of such machines as he had in use previous to the extension of the patent.

The Parker Water Wheel is another instance of a species of extensive fraud, which has been practised under an extension of time on that patent. Parker pretends to claim that many different kinds of water wheels infringe his patent; in fine, he pretends that all reacting water wheels infringe his patent, and many people have been induced, (by threats of prosecution,) to pay a large fee, rather than contest the case in law. Since the date of Parker's patent, there have been some thirty patents granted for what are called reacting water wheels, and a patent was granted to Joel Farnum, in 1808, for a reacting water wheel, twenty-one years before the date of Parker's patent. It is contended, that there is no such thing as a reacting water wheel. Water exerts no power except gravity, (that is, a power or effect produced by its weight, in descending from a higher to a lower level.) It may be applied to a wheel by a projectile force, caused by a head above the gate, and then act by the power of gravity, which constitutes a double action; but there is no such thing as a reaction in water, or in a water wheel. No one can claim a principle in a water wheel; but each inventor can claim his own peculiar form and construction; and Parker was entitled to claim what he had invented, that is, his particular construction, and no more.

The above named patents have occasioned numerous complaints against the law for extending time on patents, and petitions have been presented to Congress to repeal extensions of patents; whereas, if the patent law should be made so plain and clear, that the public could understand and know