Journal of the Society of Arts : Volume XLIX, No. 2527 [‎699r] (23/36)

April 26, 1901.]
435
JOURNAL .OF THE SOCIETF OF ARTS.
Verband Deutscher Elektrotechniker, on the
18th June, 1900, it was stated that these
proposals had not been accepted by the
Frankfurt Congress, and in the discussion the
fact was mentioned that at the end of five years
three-quarters of the number of patents granted
in Germany are void or have been dropped.
As a result another Committee was appointed
to report on the advisability of advocating the
establishment of registered patents in the sense
explained in M. von Hefner Alteneck’s paper.
All these proceedings clearly demonstrate
that the strict preliminary examination does
not fulfil its object; nor is this to be wondered
at, for no staff of examiners can possess the
latest information in every branch of invention ;
moreover, such an enquiry is really an attempt
at proving a negative. In addition, the
improved means of communication place all
civilised countries on such a footing of equality,
that each phrase of development in technical
matters is known and studied in many countries
at the same time. Hence it frequently happens
that patents are applied for in several countries
for similar inventions about the same time
by different inventors. To minimise the diffi
culty arising therefrom a Union for the Pro
tection of Industrial Property was founded
in Paris in 1883* between the Govern
ments of a number of countries, which Great
Britain joined in 1884, as foreshadowed in
Section 103 of the Patent Act (1883),! and the
International Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property lays down the principles on
which inventors are to be treated in the States
belonging to the Union.
The most important articles of this Con
vention J are :—
“ Art. IV. Any person who has duly applied for a
patent, industrial design or model, or trade mark in
one of the contracting States shall enjoy, as regards
registration in the other States, and reserving the
rights of third parties, a right of priority during the
periods hereinafter stated.
“Consequently, subsequent registration in any of
the other States of the Union before expiry of these
periods shall not be invalidated through any acts
accomplished in the interval, either, for instance, by
another registration, by publication of the invention,
or by the working of it by a third party, by the sale
of copies of the design or model, or by use of the
trade mark.
“ The above-mentioned terms of priority shall be
six months for patents, and three months for industrial
* W. and W., page 718.
+ W. and W., page 637.
i W. and W., page 718, &c.
designs and models, and trade marks. A month
longer is allowed for countries beyond sea.”
“ Art. V. The introduction by the patentee into
the country where the patent has been granted of
objects manufactured in any of the States of the
Union shall not entail forfeiture. Nevertheless, the
patentee shall remain bound to work his patent in
conformity with the laws of the country into which
he introduces the patented objects.”
“ Art. XII. Each of the high contracting parties
agrees to establish a special Government department
for industrial property, and a central office for com
munication to the public of patents, industrial designs
or models, and trade marks.”
Since this paper was first drafted the report
of the Committee has been published which
was appointed on the 24th May, 1900, by the
Board of Trade to enquire—
1. Whether any additional powers should
be given to the Patent-office to prevent the
issue of patents for inventions either obviously
old or previously protected by Letters Patent
in this country.
2. Whether any amendments are necessary
respecting the granting of compulsory licenses
(Section 22 of the Patents Act, 1883).
3. Whether the period of seven months
allowed by Section 103 of the Patents Act,
1883, may properly be extended.
This last period refers really to the Inter
national Convention, and the Committee
recommends the extension of the time to
twelve months, subject to certain conditions,
which do not concern this paper.
The subject of “ strict preliminary examina
tion ” was very fully treated in the Presidential
Address of Mr. J. U. Abel which he delivered
to the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents on
the 15th December, 1897.
Among other objections he more particularly
proved by the actual outcome of patent law
suits in the various countries, that examined
patents are by no means more secure against
being declared invalid on litigation, than
registered patents.
All this evidence clearly show's that a strict
preliminary examination is not the final
solution of the problem, and the dissatisfaction
which exists at the same time regarding the
mere registration of patents leads to the con
viction that the modern efforts at legislation in
patent matters must be based on faulty
principles.
From the short historical summary given
above it would appear that under both systems
reformers and legislators have endeavoured to
secure for the inventor a valuable monopoly as