552 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



to the world at large the practical applications of the scientist's 

 researches may be, unless a manufacture which exhibits inven- 

 tive ingenuity over and above the merit of his discovery is the 

 result, no patent protection is obtainable by him. On the 

 ground of fairness alone some variation of the existing method 

 of distributing recompense is urgently called for; and when in 

 addition it is remembered that the chief justification of an 

 elaborate patent system is the stimulating effect of the hope 

 of the reward held out to those who create an enterprise bene- 

 ficial to the community, the demand for extension of the patent 

 law appears irresistible. 



At the present time, if an invention or discovery is to receive 

 the protection of a patent, it must result in what is styled in the 

 Statute of Monopolies of the time of James I. a "new manufac- 

 ture." The invention must be new and it must also be a 

 manufacture. The meaning of each of these terms has many 

 times been expounded by the judiciary, so that their application 

 is clear, and as The Times correspondent has pointed out, newness 

 or novelty of an invention has been interpreted so as to 

 preclude, in particular instances, highly deserving discoverers 

 from the benefits of the patent law. If by any chance an inventor 

 has published his invention before the date upon which he has 

 applied for a patent, no patent which could withstand the ordeal 

 of the Courts is obtainable. Thus, in the case referred to in 

 The Times letter, Mr. X. had for years been engaged on certain 

 research work, with the result that pernicious samples of a 

 natural product could be distinguished from those which were 

 innocuous and the illness of the workman engaged in converting 

 the natural product into serviceable form consequently mini- 

 mised. Since, however, the research had extended over so long 

 a period, Mr. X., before the date of his application for a patent, 

 had published his discovery, " an absolutely necessary procedure 

 for genuine scientific work." Consequently, on the ground of 

 want of newness in his invention, this research-worker was 

 denied the reward of patent protection. The details of his 

 practical method of eliminating the deleterious element of the 

 natural product might have been patented, provided those 

 details were new and exhibited what has been termed inventive 

 ingenuity ; but in such a case, as Sir Ronald Ross points out, a 

 rule of medical ethics would forbid. As a result, although 

 workmen, employers, and the State would probably derive 



