HC Deb 13 August 1835 vol 30 cc466-71
Mr. Tooke

moved the second reading of the Letters Patent Bill. He thought the only objection that could be made to the Bill would be on the ground of its scantiness. He was certainly aware that a great deal more was required to complete the Law of Patents. It was a subject upon which two Committees had already sat, but it was so embarrassed with technical difficulties, that no measure had been brought forward on it. The fact was, that there existed at present no Law of Patents, and this Bill might form a nucleus for legislation on the subject to be constructed. The Bill was essential as far as it went for the protection of patentees. That great evils existed at present, and that too great expense encumbered the taking out of Patents, which all required remedy, he was aware; but this Bill would afford a good foundation for legislation hereafter.

Mr. Mackinnon

could not agree with his hon. Friend (Mr. Tooke), the Member for Truro, in thinking the present Bill was in any way desirable. The Law of Patents was most obnoxious as it at present stood, and ought to be abrogated entirely, and remodelled on a new system. The chief objection which he entertained to the law as it now stood was the expense incurred by those gifted individuals who were obliged to apply for a patent to secure to themselves the fruits of their labours. Formerly the Kings of England had the power of granting monopolies for almost every article required by the people. The gross abuse of this privilege led to a correction of it by the 21st of James 1st, c. 3; and it was then enacted, that the power of granting a monopoly for new discoveries should be the only remnant of the power to grant monopolies which the Sovereigns of these realms formerly enjoyed. At the present time, although the rights of the patentee were well guarded, yet he was obliged to undergo such an expense in procuring a patent as to make it scarcely a favour when obtained. Let the House bear in mind that almost all the community at present enjoyed the benefits of education; instead, therefore, of having, as formerly, only two or three thousand educated persons to compete with, an inventor might now expect nearly the same number of millions. Now, it so turned out that the human mind was more likely, with a parity of talent and powers of invention, to make discoveries, if it was exercised and stimulated, than if the party who was possessed of the same talent enjoyed also great affluence. Let A and B have equal powers of mind, one in moderate circumstances, the other wealthy, it was more likely that A, the poor man, might be induced to turn his thoughts to tome invention than B, the rich one. He (Mr. Mackinnon) spoke only generally. Now, supposing that A, after years of toil in encompassing some discovery, after spending, perhaps, the whole of his small fortune in the pursuit, found his endeavours crowned with success, but without the means to obtain a patent; in such a case A must have recourse to some capitalist, who might only advance him money sufficent to obtain a patent on the condition of receiving one-half or more of the profits arising from the invention. Now, was this as it ought to be? Was this just or right, or such a state of things as the country would approve? Why not, therefore, abolish at once all the laws regarding patents, keep the same machinery as to the establishing the right of the patent, and secure it to the inventor? Let the record of the patent be entered at the Excise, and let every article the patentee sold have the stamp of the Excise, to counterfeit which should be felony; and let, besides, all the penal enactments continue against any one who counterfeited the patent in any manner. By this simple expedient no expense would be incurred, and yet ample protection to the patentee be afforded. As to the present Bill, he (Mr. Mackinnon) could only wonder that such a man as Lord Brougham and as his hon. friend could countenance and bring forth such a miserable, bungling piece of legislation.

Mr. Parker

said the subject was one of great importance to the numerous constituency which he represented. It was a great hardship upon a man that he should devote his time and ingenuity to some useful invention, and be afterwards, in consequence of the defects of the Patent Law, deprived of the just rewards of his labour and talents. Though there were some useful provisions in the Bill, it did not go far enough. He should like to see some provision for granting short patents, as was the case in Franee. This would operate as a protection and encouragement to manufacturers.

Mr. Wilks

concurred in the observation of the hon. Member, that patents for short periods would be of great use. This point was under the consideration of the Committee on arts and manufactures. The present Patent Law was a great bar to their manufacturers, and disabled them in many cases from rivalling the French. Some better system of protection was necessary to encourage men of ingenuity. He trusted the subject would be again taken up early next Session.

Mr. Wallace

said, the Bill would do good as far as it went. Patents ought to be cheapened. The money arising from them went into the pockets of officers of the Crown, or was expended in fees, in place of being spread beneficially over the country.

Mr. Lennard

was greatly disappointed by the Bill under discussion, but he would not oppose the second reading. It was true that the Bill would do some good, and, therefore, he thought it ought not to be opposed; but it fell very far short of what he believed to have been the hopes and expectations of the public. As a measure of Reform the Bill was one of the most scanty he had ever seen; and he was the more disappointed at its being so, because a Bill introduced two or three years ago by Mr. Godson, although much more extensive and useful than the present Bill, had been thrown out in the House of Lords on the ground of its being better to wait till a more comprehensive measure, which was then promised, could be brought forward. Most of the evils of the present system were wholly overlooked by the Bill now before the House. One of the great complaints made by inventors was of the loss of time, and of the trouble incurred in suing out a patent. A person desirous of obtaining a patent had to apply first at the office of the Secretary of State, then at the office of the Attorney or Solicitor-General, then again at the Secretary of State's office, from whence he is sent to the Attorney-General, then he has to go to the Signet Office then to the Keeper of the Privy Seal, and at last to the Lord Chancellor. Much time, amounting sometimes to many months, was consumed in this process, and during all this time, if any person happened to fall on the same invention, the real inventor lost his patent. Again he considered it a hardship that an inventor could not sell his invention to a third party, so as to enable that third party to take out a patent, because it was held that no person is entitled to a patent unless he would swear that he is himself the inventor of that for which he claims the patent. The hardship of this was the more manifest, when it was considered that a man might bring an invention from abroad, and obtain a patent for it, although he might not obtain it if he had obtained the idea of the invention from a person in this country. It was a hardship, too, that having obtained a patent, he was not allowed to sell that patent to a company, consisting formerly of more than five, but now of twelve persons. Why should there be any limit as to the number of persons who might unite together, for the purpose of purchasing a patent? He thought, too, that one patent should comprehend the whole of the United Kingdom; whereas it was necessary to take out one patent for England, another for Scotland, and a third for Ireland. The only effect of this was very greatly to increase the expense and trouble of obtaining a patent, and to create an opinion that the present system was only kept up for the sake of the fees which were produced by it. He had mentioned these as a few of the points overlooked in the present Bill. He ventured to hope that his hon. Friend who had the care of the Bill would endeavour to improve it, by introducing Clauses to remedy those evils. He should be very glad, too, if his hon. Friend would attempt to define or to describe what should be the subject of a patent, and still more if he would enable inventors, if they thought fit, to take out patents for very short periods.

Mr. Potter

thought they might make this measure comprehensive in Committee as they had some weeks yet before them to sit.

The Lord-Advocate

said, that this was a most improtant subject, and that they should not reject this Bill, though it did not do all that they might wish. As to defining patents, that was a matter that might defy the ingenuity of the most acute lawyer. With regard to the limited patents suggested by the hon. Member for Boston, such as patents for three months or for two years, for the protection of discoveries and improvements in manufactures, he agreed with him in thinking that they would be productive of great good, while the limitation of the period would prevent them, in any case, from doing any harm. A measure for that purpose would in fact do immense good, and he trusted that the hon. Member for Boston, or some other hon. Member would bring forward a measure of the kind next Session. As to lessening the expense incurred in taking out patents, though this Bill did not touch that point, he certainly agreed that it was far too great, and that all fees connected with the taking out of patents, though he was himself a person engaged in passing patents, should be reduced. Besides, what expense was incurred should be paid over for the benefit of the country. He recommended the House to pass this Bill, as it would form a foundation for more comprehensive and necessary measures next Session.

Dr. Bowring

would not oppose the second reading, though he was desirous that the Bill should have gone much further. The thing most wanted was a tribunal, before which questions of right might be decided speedily, and without much expense. In France and other parts of Europe there were tribunals of this kind, composed one half of masters, the other half of workmen, and, so far as he could learn, they operated beneficially. There were many inventions of such a nature as required but a limited protection of six months, a year, or two, and for this many ingenious workmen were robbed of the benefit of their inventions. What was most wanted was a cheap protection to inventors.

Mr. Pryme

said, it was too late in the session for a more general and more comprehensive Bill than this, which, however afforded great additional protection to patentees. It protected them against losing the benefits of their invention in consequence of an erroneous use of terms. Secondly, it protected the man who was a bona fide inventor, though it might turn out that at some distant period his invention was not unknown. He knew a case, for instance, in which a man having made some discovery in the mode of working the eye of a needle was defeated because it was shown that a similar process was known in the time of Elizabeth, of which however, he had never heard. Thirdly, it enabled the Privy Council to prolong the term of protection while an invention was in progress, such as that of the steam-engine, which was not brought by Mr. Watt to its present state until after many trials and great expense.

Major Beauclerk

said, they ought to give to useful inventors all the protection in their power, and at the least expense. He hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Mackinnon) would not persevere in opposing a second reading, but contribute his aid to improve the Bill as much as he could.

Mr. Mackinnon

said, his object was to do away with the whole Patent Law as it now stood, with a view to a new and general law. Partial Amendments, such as those in the present Bill would not satisfy the object he had in view. As the House, however, seemed favourable to the second reading he would not oppose it, in the hope that a far more extensive measure would be introduced next Session. He must say, that he had looked for something more upon this subject from Lord Brougham than was effected in this Bill.

Bill read a second time.

Back to
Forward to