OCR Text |
Show PATENT LAW AMENDMENT. Tt will bo romemborcd that the Supreme Su-preme Court of the United States, di viding on tho narrow lines of four judges against three, decided that the ono taking out a patent can havo con trol of any of the appliances which he chooses toprovide for tho use of Hint patent. For instance, the ense decided was that of a mimeograph, the owner of tho pntont seeking fo restrict nil purchasers or users to the use of a cer tain hind of in I; which he himself pro vidod, at a price Mixed by himself. Ob viously, if ho sought to provido a cor tain kind of paper, tho purchaser or rontor of the machino would also be obliged to use that kind of papor. In liko manner, as pointed out by the New York Horald, (he owner of tho patent electric transformer could requiro that the wires used in connection with hiu invention should bo provided by himself, him-self, and all tho appliances, facilities, and everything in connection with that use be made and sold by himself. Obviously, Ob-viously, the decisfon of the court fhrows tho doors for monopoly and oppression too wido open, and Chief .Justice White's vigorous protest against the doctrine enunciated by the court will be recalled by all nowspapcr readers. Tho Chief Justice stated plainly that tho doctrine of the court waB iusufferable and insupportable, in-supportable, that it would have to bo ovcrrulod by legislation if in no other way. Accordingly, we find that Representative Represent-ative John A. Tlmyer of Massachusetts, anticipating the possible decision of the court, had already introduced a bill in Congress providing that no owner of or any ono having any interest in any patent covering any tool, implement, appliance, or maehineiy, shall so sell, lease, or license the article as to restrain, or atlempt to restrain, or prevent the vendee, lessee, or licensee from using any tool, implement, appliance, ap-pliance, machinery, matorial, or merchandise mer-chandise not furnished by tho vendor, lessor, or licensor. It is curious that Representative Thayer should have had the forethought to introduce this measure meas-ure prior to the decision of the Supreme Su-preme Court, since it heads that decision de-cision off to perfection. In view of the urgent recommendation recommenda-tion of Chief Justice White, it is to be hoped that Representative Thayor's bill will bo taken up by Congress and enacted without delay, for it is evident that under the decision a.s given, the owner of any pntent might carry wreck and destruction to tho appliances already al-ready in use, by requiring their disuse and the substitution of articles furnished fur-nished by himself in their place, always al-ways provided that he had an indispensable indis-pensable invention. It may be pointed out in this connection con-nection that the insistence by any owner own-er of a pntent on providing appliances, tools, and plant provided by himself would tend very largely to discourage the uso of his invention. And yet thore are inventions so vcrv important that the world cannot dispense with them, and their introduction is practically compulsory. That introduction, therefore, there-fore, should be made as little (rouble-some (rouble-some as possible instead of as great, for the inventive genius of tho world ought to be at tho service of the world on reasonable terms. |