PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL. (Hansard, 4 August 1851)

§ MR. HENRY
moved the postponement of the Committee until the following day.

§ MR. J. GREENE
considered the Bill before the House worse than the present law. The six months' specification, which was the cause of so much of the evil and robbery that existed with respect to patents, remained as bad as ever. The right of the inventor remained unascertained, and he was still obliged to come as a suppliant for what was his right. He objected to the provisions for provisional and secret registration, and considered that the appointment of examiners would lead to vexatious and arbitrary interference with the industry of the country, while, as their decision would not be final, it would not stop litigation. A somewhat similar system had been adopted in France, but it was found so unsatisfactory that it was soon abandoned; and in America they had an examiner; but although he had very slight powers, his authority was considered dictatorial, and all parties were dissatisfied with the system. The Society of Arts had gone fully into the subject, and their able Committee had given a full and 1849 clear report upon the evils of the present system, and their remedies, and they condemned, without reserve, the appointment of an examiner with such dictatorial powers as those proposed in the Bill. All the other societies that had inquired into the subject had condemned the appointment of an examiner. The only exception was that of the Financial Reform Association, who recommended an examiner, with very limited powers; but as that Association had commenced its consideration of the question by doubting the right of inventors to a property in the discoveries of their genius or their ingenuity, he (Mr. Greene), therefore, did not place much value upon the decision of that Association. The Attorney General and the law officers of the Crown had gained great credit from the House and from the country for a willingness to give up a portion of their emoluments. Now, there were at present about 500 patents a year granted; and there could be little doubt that under the new plan of centralisation that number would be increased to not less than 1,000, so that at a fee of 5l. for every patent, the receipts from this source would be some 5,000l. He believed that in order to carry out the plan proposed by this Bill, a very numerous staff of examiners would be requisite, because in some cases it might take a person from a fortnight to a month to complete his examination of a single invention. In France an inventor handed in his drawings and specification, and received a receipt stating the exact time they were received; but at the same time they guaranteed him nothing, but left him to establish his rights if they were called in question. Now, if that were the case, they might have offices for Scotland and Ireland at Edinburgh and Dublin, where these receipts could be granted, and the inventor would be spared the trouble and expense of coming to London, which would be entailed upon him under the present Bill. Then, if any claim were made which infringed upon the right of any registered patent, it would become a question for a court of law; and he should approve a clause constituting the Attorney General public prosecutor in such cases. Feeling that the Bill was an inroad upon the industry of the country, he should vote with the hon. Member for South Lancashire if he pressed his Motion.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
thought the matters referred to by the hon. Gentleman ought rather to be considered in Committee than at the present stage of the Bill. 1850 There was no doubt that the greatest variety of opinion existed in this country with regard to the patent laws. He had communicated with a great number of individuals throughout the country on the subject, which was one of great intricacy and difficulty, and he did not know any question on which he had found such wide differences of opinion existing. A committee of the Society of Arts, composed of most eminent and distinguished men, and presided over by the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson), had been appointed to consider this subject; and, at the commencement of their inquiries, they thought they had a very easy task before them. He believed, however, that in the end they differed very widely as to the patent laws which ought to be enacted for this country. Though this Bill varied considerably in form from the measure sent down by the House of Lords, it did not differ from it essentially in intent or substance. A petition, expressing the opinion of the Society of Arts on the matter, had been presented by the right hon. Member for Manchester, and the petitioners stated that, though this measure was not in all respects such as they desired, they yet believed it would effect an immense improvement on the existing law, and they considered it most important that the Bill should be passed this Session. He (Mr. Labouchere) was satisfied that great disappointment would be occasioned to the public if this measure was not passed. He would venture confidently to assert that this Bill, which had received most careful and attentive consideration in the other House of Parliament, would effect great improvements in the present law, by providing a more economical and simple mode of procedure and much more efficient machinery than now existed for carrying out the law of patents.

§ MR. J. L. RICARDO
admitted that the Bill was an improvement upon the present law; but he should oppose it, because the House and the country had had no opportunity of considering it. The Bill consisted of fifty-four clauses, and it was rather too bad to bring it in within a few days of the termination of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) would not, he was sure, contend that it was to be a final measure; and the colleague of the right hon. Gentleman at the Board of Trade (Earl Granville) had more than doubts as to the wisdom of any patent laws at all; but whether or he, he 1851 (Mr. Ricardo) could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the subject would be mooted next Session, and that a Committee would be moved for. That being the case, he should be glad to know what would be the course taken by the Government if this Bill were passed, when such a Committee should be moved for.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
thought it would be premature to pledge himself now to the course to be taken by the Government on a question of this kind in the next Session of Parliament. The Government would in the meantime have some experience of the working of this measure, and if a fair case could be made out, he had no doubt that no objection would be made to the appointment of a Committee.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
believed the provisions of this Bill would afford encouragement to miserable and paltry inventions, which would have the effect of trammelling our manufactures to an enormous extent. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would abandon any measure on the subject until next year.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that it might be supposed, from the objections urged against this Bill, that it effected some marvellous alterations in the substantive law of patents; whereas, the fact was, that with the exception of the clause respecting the introduction of the inventions of foreign countries, about which there might be some doubt, the Bill did not at all alter the substantive law on this subject, but merely the machinery by which a patent might be obtained. He was surprised that the hon. Member who had last addressed the House should object to greater economy and cheapness in obtaining patents. The hon. Member said, indeed, that the manufacturers would be injured by the taking out of patents for worthless inventions; but did he not see that such inventions would not be worth taking up, and the patents would therefore fall to the ground? The Bill enabled a man who imagined that he had hit on some valuable invention or discovery to obtain protection for six months on payment of 5l., and thus go into the market and obtain the assistance of either scientific persons to perfect it, or capitalists to carry it out; whereas, at present, it cost 109l. to take out a patent for England alone.

§ MR. MUNTZ
said, that forty-five years' experience in manufacturing had convinced him, that if a man took out a patent that was worthless, every body infringed upon 1852 it, and that in fact it was not worth protecting. He did not altogether approve of the Bill, but should support it because he and his constituents thought that it contained many improvements on the present law.

§ SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEY
represented a manufacturing community, and was informed that they considered it a great improvement upon the law as it now existed. He had given the Bill his best consideration, and was also of that opinion. He should support it, but at the same time he must say that he entirely concurred with the hon. Member for Stoke, that it would be well if there were no patent laws at all.

§ MR. J. GREENE
proposed the omission of the words by which the appointment of examiners was authorised.

§ MR. J. L. RICARDO
said, he should support this Amendment, unless the Government consented to the introduction of a proviso to the effect, that no person who was a patentee, or held a beneficial interest in any patent, or who acted professionally in respect to the obtaining of patents, should be eligible.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL
could not consent to this Motion, as he believed that the appointment of examiners was one of the most important provisions in the Bill. No doubt the appointment of examiners had failed when tried in other countries, but that was because their decision was rendered final. What was requisite in the person to examine into the claims of inventions was, great scientific knowledge, united with a judicial character and position. Now it was difficult to combine these two things; and either, without the other, would fail to inspire the public with confidence. This Bill sought to provide for the necessary combination of qualities, by intrusting the judicial investigation and inquiry, and the sifting of the evidence, to the law officers of the Crown, to whom it had hitherto been intrusted; while the examiners, who would be men of scientific knowledge, should report to them, or act as their assessors, in deciding upon points involving scientific questions.

§ MR. J. L. RICARDO
would vote against the clause, unless a provision was introduced into it, that no patent agent or patentee should be appointed examiner.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
thought there was great propriety in the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ricardo), and his hon. Friend the Attorney General would consider the point before the next stage of the Bill.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that his own opinion was in favour of the clause; but he thought it would be desirable to consider the subject a little before it was introduced.

§ MR. J. L. RICARDO
said, that if the Government would not then accept his proviso, he would move it.

MR. CORNEWALL LEWIS
said, that there could be no doubt as to the propriety of adopting that part of it which related to patent agents; but he did not see why because a man accidentally held one patent, he should be precluded from examining another of a totally different description.

§ MR. J. L. RICARDO
replied, that he did not see how it could be arranged that an examiner of a patent should only examine patents in which he was not interested.

§ MR. J. GREENE
called attention to the temptations which were held out to the examiners of fraudulently communicating the information which they had acquired by means of their office, and which they ought to keep to themselves.

§ SIR DE LACY EVANS
thought that, if possible, no person who was a patentee or connected with patents should be appointed an examiner.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL
had no doubt that the Commissioners would take the greatest care not to nominate to the appointment any person who was concerned in patents, if they could possibly avoid it.

§ MR. MUNTZ
asked how it was possible to ascertain whether a man was dabbling in patents? He was opposed to the appointment of examiners, and should not vote for the present clauses unless he was assured that this clause was an essential part of the Bill, which he did not want to lose.

§ MR. J. L. RICARDO
then stated that he would modify his proviso with respect to the appointment of a patentee as follows:—" Nor shall any examiner be entitled to act in respect of any patent in or against which he may be interested."

§ MR. J. GREENE
said, that the evident 1854 want of confidence in the truthfulness of the examiners which the Government had displayed by admitting that (it was necessary to give some such guarantee to the public as that contained in the proviso of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ricardo), only afforded him additional reason for pressing his Motion.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that the hon. Member was not justified in saying that the Government distrusted the truthfulness of the examiners; but they desired to give the public every guarantee against possible malversation on the part of these officers.

§ SIR DE LACY EVANS
thought that the Bill should provide for the observance of strict secrecy by the examiners.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that it would be very easy to frame a provision that any publication except according to the regulation of the Commissioners should make the party liable to a severe penalty.

§ MR. WESTHEAD
believed that it would be doing an injustice to the Lords Commissioners and to the Gentlemen who might fill the office of examiners to suppose that they could be so meanly base as to abuse their trust.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
stated, that the Government considered this clause an essential part of the Bill.

§ MR. J. L. RICARDO
asked, whether the payment of the officers' salaries would be provided for out of the fees or not?

The ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that the fees had been reduced to the lowest amount possible; and it was a question whether the fees thus lowered would meet the exigency of the case; he thought they would.

§ MR. J. L. RICARDO
said, that it appeared that the fees were to be paid into the Consolidated Fund; and that then the 1855 Lords of the Treasury were to pay the salaries under the Act. He thought that a Bill proposing to establish a charge upon the Consolidated Fund should be founded upon resolutions in Committee.

MR. CORNEWALL LEWIS
said, that the fees authorised to be levied by the Act were to be paid into the Exchequer; and, by Clause 44, the Lords of the Treasury were to fix and pay the salaries of the officers. No charge upon the Consolidated Fund would be created; but the expense would come annually under the review of Parliament in the shape of a vote in the Estimates. It was considered that this was the fairest principle to adopt; and that being so, there was no necessity for founding the Bill upon resolutions in Committee.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, of all the monstrosities he had ever known in that House, and he had known many, he had never heard of one equal to that. The hon. and learned Gentleman had taken great credit for cheapening the process of patenting, and now it appeared the public were to pay for it. They were granting privileges to a class of persons at the expense of the public.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that the fees, no doubt, had been made as low as possible, and if it were found that they would not realise as much as would pay the expenses, they would, no doubt, be raised; but the cost would be laid annually before Parliament, and the House would thus have every opportunity of checking any improper expenditure.

§ MR. J. GREENE
said, he hoped that provisional registration would not be pressed; and he contended that a man should be called upon to give a valid and perfect description of his invention before he received any protection for it.

§ MR. MUNTZ
, on the other hand, complained that it required so perfect a specification as to make him think the old law, which allowed six months for the general description at first put in to be completed, was preferable. As this clause and Clause 9 now stood, a person might petition, and his specification being secret, another person engaged upon the same kind of invention, better calculated, perhaps, to make it perfect, might spend a great deal of money, in ignorance that there was any person before him.

§ MR. SPOONER
supported this objection.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that the object of this clause was to give an inventor six months to perfect his invention. He would not, under this clause, be allowed to obtain protection for his invention while it was in a crude state, but must give a general and correct outline of the nature of his invention; and if he did not, the examiner would not give his certificate. He must reduce his vague idea into substance—into what a scientific man conversant with the subject would say was a fair description of the invention, and of the manner in which it would work. And then, by this clause, protection, on payment of a fee of 5l., would be given to the inventor, to enable him to complete it, or to obtain any assistance required to carry it out. Formerly a man could obtain protection for an invention for six months by merely giving its title; and it was then found that the six months were employed in filching from the inventions of others; but it was found that the practice introduced by the law officers, of requiring a general description of the invention, had worked well, preventing pirating, while it enabled the invention to be matured.

§ MR. SPOONER
said, that, as the law now stood, when a person petitioned for a patent, the Attorney General ordered advertisements to be published, in order that persons having objections to the granting of such a patent might come forward and state them. He understood that this public notice would now be postponed for six months. It might happen that two or three persons had turned their attention to the same subject, and had all petitioned, each being in ignorance of the others having done so. And, under this clause, they would go on working at considerable expense for six months in the same ignorance. He thought that means should be provided of knowing what patents were before the Attorney General.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that if, on consideration, he did not think that this point was sufficiently provided for by Clause 13, he would introduce a provision for this purpose.