154 Intelligence and Miscellaneous Articles. 



Is it not the law with regard to patents, that you cannot talie 

 advantage of the invention of a principle, without describing how 

 that principle is to be exercised ? — It is. The patent contains a pro- 

 vision, that no other person shall counterfeit, imitate or resemble 

 the invention ; that is construed in the courts to mean, that they 

 shall not take the same principle, and use other means of carrying 

 it into etfect. But if the new means used by infringers are so supe- 

 rior as to supersede the original altogether, then they are com- 

 monly allowed to be used, on the ground that they must necessarily 

 be new inventions, and not the patent one, which from its non-suc- 

 cess must be defective. 



So that if in a specification you describe one mode of carrying 

 the principle into practice, that patent would not cover other modes, 

 by which the same principle might be carried into effect ? — It would, 

 if those other modes do not produce any superior effect to the origi- 

 nal mode; but if they are so very superior, as to supersede the ori- 

 ginal, they could not be stopped by the patent. That is the man- 

 ner in which I have found the courts to proceed ; but it may be 

 easily imagined, in such matters the courts will be continually de- 

 ceived in the facts ; and as there is no declaratory law, all inferences 

 from precedents of this nature are very deceptive, because we can- 

 not know upon what facts (real or assumed) the courts founded their 

 decisions. 



Does not this prohibition to take out a patent for a principle, lead 

 to a great multiplication of counts in the specification of a patent?— 

 It does ; and it is a great trouble and difficulty in preparing a speci- 

 fication, because it is necessary to foresee all the varieties of modes 

 of execution that may be given to the invention or principle, which 

 is the essence of the patent right. It is necessary, for the security 

 of the inventor, to describe them all, to preclude other people using 

 them, and that the inventor may have his choice of that way which 

 future experience will decide to be the best. 



Would not the allowing the patent to cover the principle, pro- 

 vided there were one good method described of carrying the prin- 

 ciple into effect, lead to a more precise and clear specification ? — 

 Decidedly it would ; but if the patent were given for the principle 

 exclusively, it would be pernicious to the public, that other inventors 

 should not be permitted to work upon that principle by other 

 methods of execution, so as to produce a better result. 



You think that for a limited period, between the taking out the 

 patent and the inrolling the specification, the right ought to cover 

 the principle of the invention? — Unquestionably, during that period 

 the inventor should liave an entire right to all those principles of 

 which the heads are detailed in the first paper that is lodged, and 

 all possible applications of them, in order that he may have his 

 choice, which application he will pursue in practice. Having speci- 

 fied, his right should be contracted to what he has so specified, but 

 leaving him full liberty to add supplements, and thereby keep his 

 right always enlarged up to the fullest extent that he can maintain, 

 by continuing his labours. 



Supposing a man falls upon the discovery of an entirely new prin- 

 ciple 



