210 STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



as H matter of fact, it was not known -by any i)crson for years after they had 

 quit threshing that every otlicr clover machine was an infringement on Bird- 

 sell's patent. Yet on the principle that " ignorance is no excuse," even though 

 it bo an utter impossibility to learn, these men were held equally liable with 

 the manufacturers, and forced to pay a large royalty. 



The frequency of such cases of flagrant injustice has created a strong feeling 

 which, in some places, is expressed in favor of a complete abolishment of the 

 entire patent system, and in other instances contents itself with a demand for 

 reform. 



That organization which represents the great mass of our farmers — the 

 grange — has clearly demonstrated, during the past year, the great value of 

 organization and co-operation to the people in meeting such issues as are cre- 

 ated by the patent laws. The grange saved the farmers of this State many 

 thousand dollars by organizing the people and fighting the unjust patents 

 on the slide gate. The people, thus organized, propose to do more ; they pro- 

 pose to act, not only in this State but in every State, in such a way as to induce 

 Congress to make some desired clianges in the patent laws. The changes 

 thought to be needed are specifically stated, and thus their demand is made to 

 differ from those senseless cries of general fraud, and those meaningless demands 

 for reform with which our land has been filled the past few years. 



The object of this paper is not to advocate the changes desired by the farm- 

 ers; neither is it to defend our existing patent system. Its object is, rather, 

 to give information in regard to the present patent laws, and of the luonopoly 

 created by a patent. 



The origin of all patent laws is generally supposed to be the English statute of 

 James I. (1625), which in terms destroyed all monopolies but allowed the 

 crown to grant inventors rights to exclusive use, for a short period, of new 

 inventions, or new processes of manufacture. 



There is little doubt but that our early systems were copied from the Eng- 

 lish to a great extent. Previous to the adoption of the constitution, the dif- 

 ferent States had repeatedly, and to a considerable extent, granted patents. 

 This practice led to an endless amount of confusion and injury to industries. 



Thus the State of New York granted to Robert Fulton, in 1803, the exclu- 

 sive right of using the steam-boat within its limits, for the term of twenty 

 years; and in 1808 extended this time to thirty years. The State of New 

 Jersey granted this same patent to another inventor. The result of this action 

 was to prevent New Jersey steam-boats from coming to New York, and New 

 York boats from passing over New Jersey waters. 



By the terms of the constitution, adopted in 1788, the right of giving pat- 

 ents to inventors or copyrights to authors was conferred on congress. One of 

 the first laws passed by congress after the adoption of the new constitution 

 was the patent law of 1790, which was amended in 1793; again in 1800, after 

 ■which it was not materially changed until 183G. Previous to 1836 there was 

 no distinct organization known as the patent office, but the power to issue pat- 

 ents was given to the secretary of state, jointly with the attorney general. 

 The act of 1836 created the patent office, and put an officer, the commis- 

 sioner of patents, at the head of it. This officer, although appointed by the 

 p resident, is under the supervision of the secretary of the interior. He is 

 charged with the duty of examining all applications, in order to ascertain their 

 novelty and utility, and for this purpose is allowed numerous assistants. The 

 term of tlie patent was limited at first to fourteen years; afterward the com- 

 missioner was allowed to grant an extension of seven years, making the total 



