FARMERS' INSTITUTES. 



317 



mechanical contrivance into your \ye]], you will be liable to prosecution and 

 may have to pay a bill of damages. 



The great bulk of the patented devices of to-day have no more of the spirit 

 of true invention iri them than that just described. There are now and then 

 exceptions to this general rule — " kernels of grain, as it were, in a huge pile 

 of chaff" — devices into which the true spirit of invention has crept, and which 

 are well worth to the world many times what they will cost. 



The methods of granting patents for any novelty that may be originated 

 must, from its very nature, include many worthless articles. Indeed, it is 

 claimed that out of 300 patents granted, 99 usually prove worthless. 



PATENT NO INDICATION OF VALUE. 



People have learned practically, and in many cases to their cost, that a pat- 

 ent is no indication of the value of an article. How frequently in the past 

 have farmers been led to believe that some patented contrivance for loading 

 hay, husking corn, or digging potatoes was all that could be desired, and how 

 eagerly have they invested in a town or county right for selling that patented 

 article. Can you, however, mention an instance Avhen such a proceeding has 

 proved of pecuniary benefit? The farmer finds to his sorrow, and usually also 

 to his indignation, that his patented contrivance is of no value whatever, and 

 the glowing future pictured to him by the smooth-tongued agent, when wealth 

 should roll to him without effort on his part, to be a myth, with no existence 

 in reality. 



THE SLIDE GATE. 



Not only does the method of granting patents extend to worthless articles, 

 but, in spite of the efforts of the examiners, it is often made to include arti- 

 cles which are not new. An illustration of this is painfully familiar to some 

 of us in the recent suits for infringement on the Lee and Teel patents on the 

 slide gate. Although the history of those prosecutions is generally well known, 

 still I feel that I will be pardoned for calling your attention to a concise his- 

 tory of them. For most of the facts in this case I am indebted to Mr. H. D. 

 Piatt, of Ypsilanti, the representative of the people in tlie defense of the users 

 of the slide gate. 



In June, 1878, Bickford & Co., of Ypsilanti, purchased of a firm in Cleve- 

 land, Ohio, the patent taken out by John C. Lee, Oct. 24, 1865, on a field 

 fence and gate combined. The drawing of the patent granted, as shown in 

 the patent office reports, is given in Fig. 1. 



&£ 



dc 



D 



Fig. 1. 

 The following description was also given in the patent office report: 



"This invention consists in the combination of the gate with the posts and fence, 

 one of the said posts being slotted to receive the ends of the panels of the gate 

 when closed. (Jlaim — The arrangement of the panel or gate F in combination with 

 the mortised post B, post A, strips d', slats d, as for and the purpose set forth." 



In the construction of this gate the slats d, d, are fastened to the posts (Fig. 

 1). On the end of eacli of these slats is nailed a strip, d, which is not con- 

 nected with the ground. The gate is opened by sliding partially back over 



