Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org, arcade-museum.com -- digitized with support from namm.org
THE MUSIC TRADE
as possibilities, and many which even those still living looked upon
as little less than miraculous when first announced as accomplished
facts, are now the ordinary necessities of daily life on every conti-
nent and in every land under the sun.
While it may not be denied that this age of materialistic won-
ders has bestowed innumerable blessings upon mankind from an
ethical viewpoint, in that never before in the history of this planet
could man get so much of comfort and luxury in life by so small
an expenditure of labor, either with hands or brain, as now, there
is another aspect in which it may properly and profitably be viewed,
weighed and measured, which has seldom, if ever, been seriously
considered. How little thought has been given to the actual cost of
this great era? Not in the brain-fag of the thinker; not in the
muscle-weariness of the explorer, the experimenter, the laborer;
not in the bitter sorrow and despair over unrequited zeal; but in
the monetary cost—the cost in the gold that has been wrested from
the bosom of our old Mother Earth to deck her with the glories of
her golden age—in hard, metallic coin, the final and definite measure
of value of everything in these practical days.
W
HAT have piano men spent for patents? Hard to state,
but since the foundation of the patent system, over three
and a half million applications for patents have been made to the
various governments of the world, and very nearly two and one-
half million letters patent have been granted.
The filing of these applications for patents in this country has
involved the payment to our government by inventors and applicants
of about $50,000,000 and to the other governments of the world
from about $85,000,000 to $90,000,000. But these fees payable to
governments are only a drop in the bucket in comparison with the
other expenses involved in obtaining patents. The fees and charges
of the solicitors or agents who prepare and prosecute these applica-
tions, must be taken into account. There are hundreds, yes, thou-
sands, of instances in this country, especially during the past thirty
or thirty-five years, in which expert attorneys of high standing have
charged and received anywhere from $1,000 to $3,000 for the
preparation of the specifications and drawings of a single intricate
and important invention.
Without attempting to itemize these larger fees, it is not un-
warrantable to state that the nearly 2,000,000 applications for United
States patents, including government fees paid, have undoubtedly
aggregated about $200,000,000.
But, as about one-half of the total number of applications filed
at Washington has been rejected and patents thereon have never
been granted, this total cost of $200,000,000 is property chargeable,
in reckoning the debit side of this great account, against the million
patents which have been granted in this country. Thus, the charge
for this item against issued United States patents would average
$200 each, a moderate figure when all circumstances are considered.
It is entirely safe to state that the cost of procuring and main-
taining the nearly 2,000,000 patents granted in foreign states has
been at least three times the cost of the like number of patents in
our own country, or about $600,000,000. This gives a grand total
of very close to one billion dollars expended by inventors throughout
the world during, say, about 100 years, for governmental and
solicitors' fees alone in connection with the applications filed in that
period.
This billion of dollars covers only the instances in which the
attempts to protect inventions has proceeded thus far; but the
records and files of the host of silcitors throughout the world, and
especially in this country, will disclose a vast number of cases in
which the applications have been cast aside or abandoned after entire
or partial payment for their preparation; so that it is entirely rea-
sonable to add to the total debit of this item of cost a further sum
which will swell the amount already named to nearly two billions.
HERE are any number of people who seem to think that the
X
mere filing of patents at once unlocks for them the gates to
wealth. The quicker such an idea is eliminated, the better. The
Patent Office has been a graveyard filled with forlorn hopes for
many years, and even if one has even a meritorious invention, it is
only the elementary stage when a patent is granted for it. Per-
haps years of litigation lies before the patentee, and in the end, after
expending a fortune, he will profit nothing by it. Then again,
there is still another point: The psychological moment may not
have arrived for the successful exploitation of a new device.
REVIEW
Only the other day while talking with one of the most in-
ventive men of this industry, he remarked that three years ago he
had presented to the officers of his company, a device which he
thought, was excellent. It was rejected by them as being entirely
unsalable, and practically worthless, and yet a month ago he resur-
rected the same device, and it was pronounced by the same men to
be almost indispensable. The psychological moment had really
arrived. How many men are waiting for that psychological mo-
ment, and how many are wasting fortunes in expensive litigation
in fighting for patent rights?
A
S there are many attempts made in this industry to palm off
spurious pianos as genuine, it will interest the readers of The
Review to know that the United States Circuit Court of Appeals
has lately rendered a decision which is of special interest and im-
portance, relating, as it does, to "unfair competition/' which term
has been adopted by the law and the courts to designate cases where
one manufacturer so closely simulates the style and appearance of
articles made by another as to mislead or deceive the public as to
the origin of the goods. This matter has not always received the
attention which its importance demands, although one manufacturer
not infrequently copies the goods of another so closely as to make
it debatable whether or not this issue is involved.
In order to obtain a judicial decision in a case in which it ap-
peared to the company this issue was plainly presented, the Yale &
Towne Mfg. Co., New York City, filed a suit in the United States
Circuit Court in November, 1905, against B. S. Alder, also of this
city, agent for E. T. Fraim, Lancaster, Pa., in which the company
set forth its belief that a certain padlock made by Mr. Fraim was
so closely patterned after one made by the Yale & Towne Co. (No.
805) as to constitute a case of "unfair competition." As the com-
pany's business relations with Mr. Fraim have been and still con-
tinue to be entirely cordial, this suit was one of friendly litigation.
The case having been heard in the Circuit Court, a decision was
handed down in favor of the defendant. An appeal was taken by
the Yale & Towne Co. to the United States Circuit Court of Ap-
peals, which has reversed the decision of the lower court and
rendered a decree in favor of the complainant. The members of
the court, after a brief conference, rendered a decision in favor of
the complaining company on the spot and without retiring. "Yale
Locks" are familiar to almost every business man, and in the
opinion of the court, the defendant endeavored to copy the original.
Thus another court decision is added to the many which have al-
ready gone on record showing that the whole tendency of the legal
machinery to-day is to afford better protection for names and trade-
marks. This is a splendid case to be cited if piano manufacturers
are bringing suits against alleged infringers. The more that go on
record, make it the easier for the next person to defend a position
from being poached upon by an imitator. When an individual or
corporation has labored for many years and expended vast sums of
money in building a trademark for a manufactured article protection
should be afforded that name just as much as if it were real estate
or merchandise.
I
N a recent issue of The Review a statement was made that talk-
ing machine dealers desiring to dispose of shop worn or used
instruments must inform the factory in writing of their intention,
together with the serial number of the machine in question, then a
special license would be issued, permitting the sale at a reduced
price. The article was perfectly correct only that these rules do
not apply to talking machines generally. The National Phono-
graph Co. have never adopted this policy, and will not permit
second-hand or shop worn machines to be sold, or in any way dis-
posed of, except under the terms and conditions of their agree-
ment. The Victor Co., however, issue the special license to which
we referred.
•
S a result of the new postal regulations between the United
States and Canada, which went into effect last week, we are
obliged to raise the subscription price of The Review to Canadian
subscribers, by approximately the amount of the increased postage,
which in the case of this publication, amounts to $1.50 per year.
All unexpired subscriptions will be fulfilled at old rates, but all
Canadian renewals, and new subscribers, will be at the rate of $3.50
per year. Should the new postal arrangements be abrogated at any
future time, and the old rate restored, we shall be glad to reduce our
A
Canadian subscription accordingly.