1875.] The Rights of the Thinker. 299 
robbed for the good of the country or the pleasure of the 
rulers. 
The length of time suited for a patent is worthy of re- 
discussion. We are showing rather the error of those who 
would give none whatever. One reason for thus bleeding 
inventors is, that they take ideas out of a field common to 
all men. So are the fish of the sea, but he who catches is 
allowed to keep. Another form of this fallacy is, that some 
one else would have got the idea; but who knows? ‘The 
world waits for thousands of years for very simple ideas. 
There are a few corollaries from other ideas that easily come 
to many minds, and that is held as a reason why no one 
should have any monopoly. ‘This is a favourite fallacy: 
men forget that an idea cannot be made useful to the public 
without labour and expenditure, and unless a man has some 
protection he will not risk his money or his time. It is for 
the interest of the public that there should be a monopoly 
of a new invention for a time, that it may be worked out 
and completed, and the market supplied ; and if twenty in- 
ventors claimed the idea at the same moment it would be a 
loss to the public if one out of the twenty were not chosen 
as the owner, or a joint ownership established. In a word, 
a manufacturer or capitalist refuses to aid in an invention 
without protection. There are ideas lying dead, because 
by some patent law they have lost protection. It would be 
well if the country would renew such patents to men who 
will undertake them. Why should it be impossible to 
patent them twice? If the first man in fourteen years 
could not repay himself, why not give other fourteen years 
to him, orto another man? And why should a fully-pub- 
lished idea be in all cases a bar to this kind of prote¢tion ? 
The knowledge may exist, but the power, or knack, or tact 
may be wanting, and it is he who benefits the public that 
the public must reward. 
The principle at the root of this reasoning is, that the 
public gains by giving—for a time at least—the monopoly to 
individuals. We believe this principle to be fully established. 
If we take a country in which patents are not to be pro- 
cured, we find invention repressed. ‘There can be little 
doubt that the thoughtful German mind would have done 
more in industry—a direction extremely natural to it, as its 
early history shows—had not the laws been destructive of 
protection to the individual inventor. We do not know if 
the Government imagines that by refusing patents the 
country obtains inventions for nothing. The delusion is 
great ; who will show his treasures if they are to be stolen ? 
