any circumstances whatever, since even, as a means of keeping our inventions from foreigners, such secrecy only acts as a premium to inventors and their workmen to go abroad, and turn their secret knowledge to a profitable account in foreign parts. That the rule of law by which a want of originality in a single minor point of a patent vitiates the whole, is a most excessive hardship and injustice, and every way impolitic. The reason for it is that so long as patents are granted merely upon the request of the inventors, and whilst they are left at liberty to specify what they please, if there were not some limiting penalty of that sort, they would put inventions ad infinitum into their specifications, for the chance that if one hook did not catch another might; but the proper remedy for that evil would be to set aside that part only which is not original. That there appears to the witness to be no advantage in the law which allows a person to take out a patent for an invention communicated to him by a foreigner, and not allowing him to take out a patent for an invention communicated to him by a British subject; except inasmuch as the contrary might tend to be a premium to the fraudulent obtaining of inventions. When an invention is fairly assigned, there can be no reason whatever why a patent should not be taken out by the assignee; in many cases it would be attended with great advantage, because it constantly happens that the inventor is not so well qualified to pursue his invention into actual practice as some other person, who for that very reason would become the purchaser if encouraged by law.

Since a patent for the three kingdoms costs from 4007. to 5007., does not that operate as a tax upon different inventions with great inequality?-The expense of the patents for the three kingdoms is decidedly too high; but I don't think that the present expense of a patent for one kingdom is too high. I think that the present expense of a patent for England would be about the proper expense of a patent for the whole of the British dominions. I mean that, in the absence of any other check to an unlimited multiplication of patents, they should not be granted too cheaply.

Does any method occur to you of baving the cost of a patent made proportionate to the importance of the patent?-Possibly it might be desirable to make little or no expense in the first instance, but to apply an annual and increasing tax upon the continuance of

375

the patent-right-to make the tax scarcely any thing at first, but to establish such a progressive increase from, year to year as would at last induce inventors to abandon the right before the end of the term, which in that case should be longer than at present (say 21, years).

15th May, 1829.

Arthur Aikin, Esq. examined.

Submits the following as a short statement of the proceedings which he thinks ought to be had in taking out a patent. It should commence by a petition to the Attorney-General, stating that the petitioner has made an invention likely to be of public utility (and the general nature of the invention should be here rehearsed), and that he wished to have a patent for such invention; also, that he be allowed time previous to specifying to make experi-, ments, and that while such experiments are going on no one should be allowed to anticipate him by taking out a patent for the same. This petition should be put by the Attorney-General into the hands of examiners, in order to ascertain whether the petitioner's invention has already formed the subject of a patent if it has not, the prayer of the petitioner should be granted, and he should be allowed from three to nine, or perhaps twelve months, for making his experiments; subject, however, to an obligation either of specifying at the end of that time, or of forfeiting a certain sum. The petitioner having made his experiments, should then proceed to specify, by delivering into the examiners a full account of his process, with the necessary drawings, declaring that the same is a full and true statement. The examiners should then call on the petitioner to perform his process before them, comparing the process with the written description of it, and requiring the petitioner to correct his description where defective or erroneous. Such corrected statement should be certified by the examiners, and handed over to a law-officer to put it into the form of a legal specification. Such specification should then be compared by the examiners with their certified description, and if found correct should then be enrolled. The specification should remain sealed till the end of the monopoly granted by the patent, and should not be opened except by an order of the court, in case the validity of the patent comes to be contested: but the patent should not be set aside for any error in the legal form, or error

376

ON THE PATENT-LAWS."

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE in dates, or clerical mistakes. If the patentee, during the first seven years of his term, practises any variation from the process or apparatus described in his specification, he should be bound previously to lodge with the examiners a description of such variation, on pain of the patent being void. These va riations should form part of the patent, and the monopoly of them should cease with the patent. But the patentee should be allowed during the last seven years of his term to work his patent with any improvements, without being obliged to communicate them to the examiners. With regard to fees witness would be inclined to levy a small one on the petition, reserving the principal payment for the enrolment of the specification. Many inventions are made by persons by whom a large fee in the first instance can not be afforded; and monied-men would be more dis posed to advance the necessary funds, after it had been ascertained by an experiment performed upon a large scale that the invention was likely to answer in practice. Witness would make the Attorney-General the judge of the length of time to be allowed between the petition for the patent and the enrolment of the specification ; and thinks the Attorney-General should have the appointment of the proposed examiners. By having the specification sealed,he means that it ought to be open only in case of requisition from a court of justice, and not open for general inspection till the end of the term: but admits that there are great difficulties in the case. On the one hand, there is a great deal of annoyance that the patentee is liable to from fraudulent attempts to come as near his patent as possible without actually infringing it'; and on the other hand, there is also an objection which has been stated on the part of persons bona-fide making improvements, and finding, after they have been at the expense of setting up apparatus, that they are prevented from using them by patents already taken put. These are two difficulties which pppose one another, and witness does not see how it is possible to get completely clear of both of them. Thinks the public would gain a great deal by a previous examination of specifications by persons properly qualified; because if you examine those patents that have expired, many of them cannot be worked at all, because the patentees, either from negligence or from fraud, have omitted stating particulars, which (although not obvious to a person reading over the

specification) are found of great importance in endeavouring to carry the in vention into effect. Supposing a commission or assessors to be appointed, witness would not have them responsi ble for any of the legal language of the specification, because it rarely happens that you can obtain in one person the necessary combination of legal and scientific knowledge. The duty he would impose on the examiners would be only that of seeing that the statement made by the patentee corresponds with the process as brought into practice : witness would then leave to other persons the obligation of putting it into legal form, and then he thinks in equity the patentee ought to be secured from any risk of his patent being overthrown upon a mere legal technical objection. With respect to the present rule of law that a patent cannot be given for a principle, witness decidedly approves of it ; no patent should be granted for a mere principle without some practical application of it.

Mr. Mark Isamberd Brunel, Engineer, examined.

Has taken out several patents, but knows very little of the patent-laws : thinks that if patents were very cheap, there would be the more obstacles in the way of good ones-that the expense should be pretty high in this country, because if it is low you would have hundreds of patents more yearly, and would obstruct very much the valuable pursuits considers the present cost, however, too dear, Is of opinion, that a commission to examine specifications would be a very good thing, especially if such commission had power to give inventor a year or two to improve his machine. Considers the present rule of law that patents cannot be taken out for an abstract principle by no means an unwise one, and that it ought to remain as it is. A principle without a mode of carrying it into effect is of yo use whatever; it may remain ages, as steam has remained ages, unused. Would in some cases increase the period of a patent beyond fourteen years, and allow of patents being taken out for a shorter term at a smaller expense. Conceives that there would be very great objections to a commission for the regulation of patents, arising from the jealousies that would subsist, but thinks so ill of the present mode of trying the validity of a patent by a jury, that he has frequently said he might as well toss for the fate of a patent it is an intricate question for a jury, and in

many cases it is quite unintelligible for 'them.

What are the prices of patents in France?-1 think it is 1500 francs for 14 years.

Do you consider that too low a price-For France it is very well, but for this country it would be too low.

What would be your opinion of giv ing a power to the Secretary of State.or some other anthority, to direct the specification to be cancelled in certain cases?-¡ do not know what is the motive for cancelling it if it is on behalf of the inventor,that is some reason; but if it is to prevent its going abroad, it is of no use; because if it is good it will soon make its way, and if it is not it is of no consequence.

Is not that the mode adopted in France? It is; but it is not that libe ral principle which exists in this country.

Mr. Charles Few, Solicitor, examined.

Has taken out several patents, and entirely concurs with Mr. Aikin on the efficacy and propriety of a commission, instead of the present mode of proceeding before the Attorney-General, which is little better than a farce; but differs from Mr. Aikin thus far, that he would allow every person who chooses to take the risk and expense to have a patent, in case no caveat is entered against him, and would only have recourse to a commission in case of a disputed patent: which commission should be formed of scientific and practical men, with the Attorney-General, or some other barrister, at its head. Would not have the validity of a patent tried by a jury, as they frequently can know nothing about what they try. Does not agree with Mr. Aikin as to the expense of a patent being small; but thinks it should be a pretty heavy sum. Would increase the fee upon patents!! Would have it such a sum as would pay the commissioners!!! Is quite satisfied that great inconvenience would result from considerably reducing the present expense of patents, because, even at the present expense, there are so many trifling patents taken out. If the fee was much higher, parties that are now taking out patents for little speculative things that do not answer would not take them out. But admits, at the same time, that he can see no reason why one patent should not

2. • Mr. Aikin seems only to have proposed that it should be sinall in the first instance.EDIT, M.M.

377

serve for the whole of the three kingdoms, except that there are fees belonging to the different Secretaries of State of England, Ireland, and Scotland, who MUST be provided for. SOME HOW OR OTHER!!!!

18th May, 1829.

Mr. Francis Abbott, of the Petty Bag Office, and Solicitor, examined.

Stated the process of taking out a patent for Eugland. It is sometimes usual, although not necessary, to enter a caveat as the first step, as a precaution that the applicant shall not be anticipated (as hás sometimes happened) by some other party, in taking out a patent for a thing which he has invented," After entering the caveat, or without entering the caveat, an affidavit is made by the person, that he has either invented, or has had communicated to him by a foreigner, some discovery. A petition is then presented to the King, praying a grant of letters-patent for England, Wales, and Berwick-on-Tweed, or with the addition of the Colonies; the colo nies are frequently omitted, because it is attended with some extra expense, and in many inventions it would be of no use to embrace the colonies. That petition being submitted to the Secretary of State, a reference is made to the Attorney or to the Solicitor-General, who reports in favour of the application, if it is not stopped by any caveats; his clerk looks over the books, and if he finds any caveats for a patent on the same subjects, the applicant is delayed a week, that notice may be given to those who have entered caveats to decide whether they will oppose it or not; if within that week the person having had notice says he shall oppose, the next step is to take out a summons for the bearing before the Attorney or Solicitor-General. A week's notice more is given of that appointed time; but frequently the parties who have said they should oppose do not oppose: instances have arisen where patentees have been brought some hundreds of miles to support their application, and when arrived, no opposing party has appeared. If the parties attend, they are heard before the Attorney or Solicitor-General, and if he sees any reason to think there is an interference, he stops the patent; if he thinks there is no interference, he makes his report in favour of the application. That report is taken back to the Secretary of State's Office, for what is called the King's warrant; that warrant recites, shortly, that such a person has applied for a patent, and

378

that the King is advised to grant it; and he, in general terms, directs the Attorney-General to prepare a patent for the King's signature. The warrant, as it is called, is then taken back to what is called the Patent Bill Office; it is still under the Attorney and SolicitorGeneral, in an office exclusively appro priated to the engrossing of patent bills. In the course of a week, or sometimes more, the bill is prepared and signed by the Attorney or Solicitor-General, and taken back for the King's signature to it, and is then called "The King's Bill," the King having signed, it goes to the Signet Office, where it passes, and then it is called "The Signet Bill;" from thence it goes to another office, where it undergoes the Privy Seal, when it is called "The Privy Seal Bill;" from the Privy Seal it goes direct to the Lord Chancellor's Office, and receives the Great Seal. Originally it used to pass another stage to the Hanaper, to pay the Hanaper fees on it; but it is not now taken to the Hanaper Office, the clerk of the patents at the Great Seal receiving the Hanaper fees, and paying them over. If there be no caveat, the Great Seal is affixed; but if there is a caveat, notice is given; and if the party says he opposes, then the applicant has no means of getting rid of that caveat but by a petition to the Lord Chancellor, which, in modern times, is very rare. When witness first began to pass patents, caveats in this last stage were much more frequent, because, at that time, they were vexatiously resorted to in many instances, it being considered that the Lord Chancellor had no power to award expenses, however improper the opposition; but, about thirty years ago, after mooting the question several times before the Lord Chancellor, on a petition witness presented, the expenses were ordered to be paid by the person who had either not sufficient grounds, or did not appear to support them; and, since it has been found that the expenses can be awarded at the Great Seal, the oppositions there are much less frequent. When a person has thus

completed a patent for England, he must go through nearly a similar process to obtain one for Ireland, and so also for Scotland. The Scotch patent passes a seal that is called a "substitution for the Great Seal of Scotland," at Edinburgh; and the Irish patent passes the Great Seal at Dublin; the English one, the Great Seal here-all three separate and distinct jurisdictions. Nearly the same expenses, too, are incurred in each case. The time required to obtain the Great Seal to English patents depends much upon casualties; they used to be more expeditiously obtained than at present: now we are, sometimes, three months or more in getting a patent. An Irish patent can seldom be got in less than five or six months; it is the more unaccountable, since the royal signature is only required once for Irish and Scotch patents, and twice for an English one. Every body who has had any thing to do in the business, have felt the great inconvenience of this. Witness frequently urged the danger of having the Irish patentee's right destroyed, inasmuch as any body may see his English specification here on paying the office-fees, and by sending over to Ireland the whole subject-matter of it, and publishing it there before his Irish patent has passed the Great Seal, renders it completely nugatory. The greatest delay arises when the royal signature cannot be obtained. Witness can get a Scotch patent, although he has to correspond with his agent in Edinburgh, much more expeditiously than he can an English one; in ordinary cases, about half the time; because the King's signature is only required once: as soon as the Lord Advocate of Scotland has made his report, similar to the Attor ney-General's report in England, the King issues a warrant, as it is called, which is a substitution for the King's bill here; it differs a little in form. The introduction of the Scotch form here would be a very great improvement. The expense of a patent is increased if taken out by several persons. The following statement shows: