554 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



his discovery. These are open to others equally with himself, 

 while as regards those applications which are not obvious, an}'- 

 one who can exercise inventive ingenuity may obtain protection 

 for the exhibition of this ingenuity whether he is or is not the 

 originator of the basic idea. No matter what may be the amount 

 of invention present, whether large or small, which may be 

 involved in furthering the original discovery, provided invention 

 can be proved, the originator of the foundation discovery is 

 refused the right to use the subsequent invention without 

 permission of its patentee, and this although the originator 

 could easily have produced the invention had he known what 

 was required. 



Inroad into the sacrosanct requirement of novelty in a 

 patented invention has already been effected ; for the Patents 

 Act, which now governs the grantings of patents, stipulates that 

 a patent shall not be rendered invalid by a prior publication which 

 is made without the consent of the inventor, if the inventor 

 applies quickly for a patent after learning of the unauthorised 

 publication. 



Here then nefarious publication is not prejudicial to the 

 inventor; but what is to be said of commendable publication by 

 the inventor himself before he decides to exclude the public from 

 the free use of the result of his researches ? Surely, the right to 

 receive protection after an invention has been published by one 

 who is not the inventor ought to be conceded to him who, being 

 the inventor, meritoriously publishes his invention. It can be 

 no great step to accord him a similar measure of redress when, 

 say, before the Royal Society, he himself has promulgated the 

 result of his researches before having lodged his application for 

 a patent. But the principle of granting protection as against 

 publication by the inventor, as opposed to the publication by a 

 stranger, has already been affirmed. By a series of Patents Acts 

 spread over the last sixty years, the publication of an inven- 

 tion at selected exhibitions does not prejudice the inventor 

 against applying for and receiving a grant at a subsequent date, 

 a grant which otherwise would be invalid on the score of want of 

 novelty. In this instance, the publication is not unauthorised by 

 the inventor as in the other case where the legislature has pro- 

 tected him, but is the direct result of his own action and desire. 



We see then two exceptions to the rule that the publication 

 of an invention prior to the date of the application for a patent 



