to a second party for identically the same invention to-morrow, upon the same terms; and next day, if I should apply, they would grant one to me, looking out for nothing but the legal fees; and so on, for any and all persons applying.

If the patent for which the three of us were granted the same rights should be valuable, a triangular legal fight would commence; one would, of course, be certain to win, and the other two would be just as certain to lose, and the chances would be that the money which two of us had paid to the government for fees, each believing that we had prior rights, would eventually be expended for our support in the almshouse, the invention having made one of us, and bankrupted the remaining two of the original equally confident trio.

Should any subject of the British government conduct his business upon the same principles that it does in the granting of patents, he would be a felon, and transportation or imprisonment would be the penalty.

Let some subject sell the same merchandise or other commodity or valuable thing to several different persons, and take full payment from each, and giving no notice of the previous sales, he would not desire to remain any longer than was absolutely necessary in reach of British law. But this is exactly what that government does all the time in issuing patents; they lose sight of the fact that they are morally bound not to accept payment more than one time for exactly the same thing. Restrictions should be immediately made in this matter and invention encouraged, not impeded, or many of their most important manufactures will

pass to us by right of extra diligence, and in accordance with all the laws of progress. The serious defect which has been noted in the English system stands in the way of that development of the industrial arts which is the aim of patent law, the intent of which it is the solemn duty of legislation to foster and safely guard, as well as to remove all impediments to its equitable and moral progress. One of the main principles of the American system is that no invalid patent shall issue, and that a patent shall only be for a new invention or discovery, and able to stand the test of litigation.

Since writing the above, and while this volume was in the hands of the publishers, the English patent law has been so modified as to issue, from January 1, 1884, letters only to the person or persons claiming to be the inventors; also largely curtailing the fees during the first four years of the life of the patent; but leaving the remainder of the law as to other fees, length of patent, and many other matters, quite in its old form. The idea seems to have been, if a patent was valuable it would develop itself during the early period, or the first four years, and could stand the other heavy taxes or fees. This is a great error; many patents are issued which are far ahead of the times at which they appear, and it requires a much longer period for development. The life of a patent is like the life of many men— the last years are often the best and most profitable in many ways. The new law provides for interferences, and allows the application to be sent by mail instead of being delivered by hand, as formerly. Other points will be noted directly.

Some few of the changes are worth imitating; but the majority of them are of but small, and no real practical value. The ground around the roots of the defects in the law has been slightly loosened, but the evil still remains, and must be wholly eradicated in order to fully stimulate the inventive genius of the masses. A country that professes to be so strongly in favor of free trade should not exempt about all the wants of the body and then tax so heavily the fruits of the mind. The patent law of England is still too much a relic of a period which is long since past, as is also its common law, and many of its customs and institutions. It is right for nations to be conservative in a moderate degree; but extremes always measure out full punishment.

The following are a few of the salient points of the new English patent law :—

The patent must contain one or more distinct claims. Heretofore it has been usual, but not necessary, to have claims.

When the complete specification is accepted, it is made public and advertised; and any one may within two months oppose the sealing of the patent for these causes: That the invention has been taken by fraud from some one; that it is already patented in Great Britain; and, that the application has been reported against as appearing to contain the same invention as a prior dated application. This opposition may be contested, and is theoretically a safeguard, but it opens the door to enemies, or to those having contrary interests, to worry poor inventors.

When the right to convey by deed begins is not stated;

it commenced previously only after the sealing of the patent. But under this new law the comptroller is made judge as to the ownership of patents, and anything which satisfies him is enough to convey the title. So that whoever he enters in the register of patents as the proprietor has absolute power over the invention, to sell it, to grant licenses, to deal with it, and to give effectual receipts for any of these things.

The owner can ask for the privilege of amending his patent, so as to disclaim, correct, or explain any part. But this must be advertised, and within a month any one may oppose it. This may lead to a contest as to what he may be allowed to modify. No change can be made to give the patentee more than, or different from, what he claimed at first.

A new departure is that the patent binds the government. The government may use the invention by agreement with the patentee, and even without that, on terms to be fixed by the treasury, after hearing the parties. But the patentee can claim payment therefor as a right, which is now recognized in him as against the crown.

The courts and committee of the privy council are empowered to call in the aid of an assessor, specially qualified, to assist in trying and hearing suits for infringements and other matters relating to patents and inventions which lawyers generally do not understand. This is a good point, and one we will need to copy.

The Board of Trade may compel the patentee to grant licenses on such terms as may be deemed just, in default of his granting licenses on reasonable terms, where it is com

plained that the patent is not worked in the kingdom, that the reasonable requirements of the public cannot be supplied, or that any one is prevented from using another invention to the best advantage.

There are provisions adopted looking to the establishment of an international protection for inventions, trade-marks and designs, so that when a patent was applied for in one country in such union, the applicant would have seven months to make his applications in the others, without risk of loss from publication or subsequent applicants.

Nearly every civilized nation on the globe has provided in a greater or less degree for the encouragement and protection of inventive skill and industry; and for generations exclusive privileges have been granted to the producers of things new and useful in art, science, literature, and mechanics. Upon the experience and practical workings of the various systems of the Old World, our laws and practice have been founded and perfected. Prior to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, some of the States, or provincial governments, granted to inventors exclusive privileges, but for obvious reasons these were of little or no value. By act of April 10, 1790, the first American patent system was founded. Thomas Jefferson inspired it, and may be said to have been the father of the American Patent Office. He took great pride in it, it is said, and gave personal consideration to every application that was made for a patent during the years between 1790 and 1793, while the power of revision and rejection granted by that act remained in force. It is related that the granting of a patent was