Journal of the Society of Arts : Volume XLIX, No. 2527 [‎702r] (29/36)

April 26, 1901.]
JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF ARTS.
to put his specification into shape so as not
to cover too much; if he were unwilling to do
that then he should suffer an endorsement. That
scheme was very favourably spoken of by the late
Sir William Siemens, and had lately been recom
mended to the Departmental Committee by many
very eminent men. He took very strong exception
to the suggestion that a patent should not be renew
able unless it had been practically worked during the
first four years. Many excellent and useful inventions
were brought out by men which it was not in their
power to introduce commercially.
Mr. P. M. Justice thought the reader of the paper
liad not considered the entire effect of his proposition
in regard to the compulsory working clause. Did he
suggest that he was walling that every one of his
many inventions, as specified in each particular
specification at the present time, which was not in
full work, might be cancelled ? There was always
a series of steps in building up a new' industry, but
Mr. Siemens went outside those steps, and suggested
that each thing must be worked which w'as patented.
The original Edison telephone was a huge instru
ment which one had to grind like a coffee mill
when speaking and listening. Did Mr. Siemens
suggest that the patent was not valid, on the
ground that the particular instrument was not in
use after the improvement came into force ? A
large German aniline dye factory An East India Company trading post. employed over
30 chemists, who did nothing toward practical manu
facture, and he had been informed that out of over 100
products made in the works there w r as not more than
two products in which the process by which they were
produced was more than threeyears’ old, everyproccss
having been improved. Were all the early patents
to be annulled, on the ground that they were not
commercially worked ? If it were so the field of
invention would be thrown open so that no capitalist
would be prepared to risk his money in any enterprise
under patents.
Mr. Edward Carpmael agreed with Mr. Siemens
that the object of Patent-law was to encourage the
starting of new industries in the country, but he en
tirely disagreed with him in thinking that the means
he proposed would succeed in attaining that end. He
thought the advocates of compulsory working laboured
under two delusions. First, they appeared to think
that everybody in the trade was most anxious to take
up and work untried inventions, and that it was the
patentee who was the dog-in-the-manger, who would
not work himself or allow other people to do so;
and, secondly, that an unpatented invention was more
likely to be worked than a patented one. In his experi
ence, extending over more than 30 years, he had always
found that patentees and inventors were most anxious
and willing to carry out their inventions, that being
the only way in which they could make money out of
them. In 99 cases out of 100 the reason why a
valuable invention was not carried out was not the
unwillingness of the inventor, but the obstinacy and
resistance of the trade. A very striking illustration
of the fact that manufacturers were not very
willing to take up untried inventions was that for
12 years after the passing of the Act of 1883 not
a single application was made for a compulsory
license. He was quite aware that at present, owing
to the regulations of the Board of Trade, there were
great difficulties and expenses involved in obtaining
a compulsory license ; but when the Act was passed
no one could have foreseen this; on paper nothing
could be more simple and inexpensive. Even up to
the present time he believed he was right in saying
that no bona-fide application had been made for a
compulsory license under a patent which had not been
worked. In all cases the patent had been worked to
a very large extent, and it was because it was profit
able that the compulsory license was wanted. He
thought a few examples would show the difficulties
meritorious inventors experienced in getting their
patents taken up. Messrs. Thomas and Gilchrist
had to assign one-third of their patent and
grant a free license before a manufacturer could
be found to undertake their process, and although
that was done immediately the patent was granted it
was not commercially worked till more than three
years had elapsed from the date of the patent. In the
case of Watt’s steam engine and Lister’s (Lord
Masham) inventions of wool and silk combing an 1
velvet weaving fortunes had to be spent and years
wasted before the inventions were commercially
adopted. In more recent times, it was eight years
after the date of the patent before Hopkinson’s three-
wire system was adopted at all, and years before
Parsons’s turbine was used commerciallv. Did
Mr. Siemens seriously contend that all those in
ventors should be deprived of the profits of their
inventions, or did he contend that England would
have been benefited if these industries had been
stifled at their birth ? Were either Siemens’s re
generative furnace or the Siemens-Martin process
for the production of steel, worked within three years
of the date of the patents ? If they were, it was only 7
because they belonged to a rich and powerful com
pany, and not to a poor inventor. In his opinion,
Mr. Siemens’s proposition, so far from encouraging
the introduction of new manufactures, would have an
entirely opposite effect, in many cases stifling them
altogether.
Mr. John I. Thornycroft, F.R.S., thought there
was more difficulty in getting an invention worked
than was generally supposed. If compulsory working
within a limited time w 7 as necessary he thought Mr.
Siemens should extend the time he had mentioned.
Legislation, so far as it had been altered in recent
years, had been improved, but the main intention of
patents by the Crown, that they should be a benefit to
the community at large, must be kept in view. A
preliminary examination, which would help the
inventor by giving him detailed information of