Music Trade Review

Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org, arcade-museum.com -- digitized with support from namm.org
THE MUSIC TRADE REVIEW.
Unfair to American
Inventors.
D
R. ELIHU THOMSON has the follow-
ing to say of the injustice of the pat-
ent laws, more particularly statute 4,887,
in a recent issue of the Electrical World:
While the decision of the Supreme Court
makes it plain that the wording of the law
in relation to the limitation of United
States patents by foreign patents is to be
taken instead of what would seem to me to
have been the evident intent of the original
enactment, I wish to point out some of the
injustices under which the American in-
ventor has suffered from this law, as it has
been and is now interpreted, in comparison
with inventors and workers abroad.
An American inventor making applica-
tion for a patent has been and will still
remain under the disadvantage of being re-
quired to perfect his United States patent
before applying for patents abroad, and in
order to secure valid patents abroad he
must refrain from publication of any new
matter which he may have discovered until
such foreign patents have been obtained, as
the mere publication nullifies the right to
take a patent in most important foreign
countries. But it is practically impossible,
as is well known, under our system of
patent examinations, to control the time of
issuance of a patent in the United States,
and if the application should become in-
The
volved in an interference, which is more
than apt to occur with inventions of any
considerable importance, the issuance of a
patent may be tied up for an indefinite
period of years. During this period there
is every prospect of the same subject mat-
ter being worked upon abroad, or the mat-
ter becoming published, especially if the
invention undergoes development in the
United Stales. The inventor, therefore, if
he desires foreign patent protection, must
take his foreign patents and stand the
shortening of the term of the United States
patent; or, if the interference proceedings
or other delays last during the life of the
shortest foreign patent, he receives a patent
which has already expired when it issues,
a "still born" patent, so to speak.
Again, in the race between two 'inter-
fering inventions, the weaker party, find-
ing that he will probably lose the interfer-
ence in the United States, may easily
transfer his scene of activity to foreign
countries, while the stronger party, feeling
that he does not wish to ruin his United
States interest, at the same time refrains
from patenting abroad. In this case the
party who is likely to come out ahead here
does come out at the last without any for-
eign patents, while the other party to the
interference may come out with several
valid foreign patents, but no United States
patent.
Now, I do not think it requires any argu-
ment to show that the evident intention of
the United States law when it .was first
passed was not to bring about this state of
things, and so handicap the honest Amer-
ican inventor. Nor is this all. The posi-
tion of the foreign inventor under the
United States law has 1 een that he could
make his applications in foreign countries
whenever he felt like doing so and receive
his patents, and, after an indefinite period
thereafter, he was at liberty to apply for a
United States patent and obtain a patent
only limited by the shortest term foreign
patent. Prior publication here would not
effect his rights. Prior publication does
affect the United States inventor's rights
abroad. Does not this amount to a dis-
crimination against the United States in-
ventor?
And would it not really tend,
were there not other favorable influences,
to discourage invention here?
The United States is entitled to take its
proper place, not only in the actual work
accomplished, but in the literature which
naturally accompanies the work and with-
out such a restraint as now exists. The
question arises, How long is the United
vStates worker to be so handicapped, or
practically put under a ban, by ill-consid-
ered laws? This is a question which I
have often asked myself, and the answer to
which, I have no doubt, has been sought
by many who have experienced the same
hardships.
Tin. W. W. Kimball Co., reported to be
about to establish a retail branch at Grand
Rapids, Mich.
Ivers & Pond Packing Thimble
FOR PIANO AND ORGAN
STYLE 2
!, ISOI
BACK
STYLE 1
MESSRS. ALFRED DOLCE & SON,
New York City.
DEAR SIRS: We have consulted counsel and are advised that the use of a sound
ing-board button, or any similar article, glued or in any other way secured to the back
of a piano, for the purpose of effecting the same result as that effected by our patent
packing thimble, would undoubtedly be an infringement of the patent. We, there-
fore, see no way but to notify such infnngers courteously, and if they do not desist
then appeal to the courts.
The essence of our patent, the "novelty" that entitles us to the patent, is not in
a new form, but in a new use of a form not new. It is entirely immaterial whether
the packing thimble be made of wood, or metal, or other substance, and it is entirely
immaterial whether it be a button attached by glue or any other means, or a button
provided with a tube for attaching it to the piano. The instant the mere button is at-
tached for substantially the same purpose as that accomplished by the thimble, that
instant the button becomes the head, and the wood around the screw-hole becomes the
tube of the very article patented, viz., a packing thimble, and thus the infringement
is accomplished in fact as in spirit.
Yours very truly,
Masonic Temple,
IVERS & FOND PIANO CO.,
Tremont and Boylston streets.
G. A. GIISSON, Treas.
Boston, Mass., March 13th, '95.
Beit Selling Hois.
110 and 112 East l3iH St.
HEW YORK GITY