I30 



NATURE 



[March 31, 192 1 



consideration was often fixed on the basis of a 

 royalty, and the Commissioners saw no reason for 

 departing from this method of assessment. 



Even when this position was reached, it was 

 seen clearly that in estimating- payment upon a 

 percentage basis there were still present many 

 special factors which, varying almost in each case, 

 were to be taken into account, as, for example, 

 where an invention which could be supplied at a 

 cheap rate produced consequences out of propor- 

 tion to the cost of the article. Where some doubt 

 was present as to the validity of a patent, or as 

 to the use of an invention, a more or less em- 

 pirical discount or deduction had to be made. A 

 deduction was also required where the inventor 

 was in the Government service, in a military, 

 naval, or civil capacity, and had been allowed to 

 patent his invention jointly with an official repre- 

 sentative. A further notable instance lay in the 

 case of an official who had been placed in a situa- 

 tion with the full knowledge that the opportunities 

 presented to him might lead to successful inven- 

 tion to which the Government might justly lay 

 claim. In general, such instances were relegated 

 by the Commissioners to the two categories of 

 inventions in respect of which no legal right to 

 compensation was present, and, on the other hand, 

 where the inventor, at the request of a Depart- 

 ment of State, or on the broad ground of public 

 policy, had refrained from securing a patent. 



As regards that large class of unpatented in- 

 ventions which came before the Commissioners, 

 applications for reward by originators were con- 

 sidered broadly and with due regard to all the 

 circumstances of the case, and not merely from 

 the stricter legal point of view which was taken 

 up when the patented inventions were under in- 

 vestigation. But, the position having been 

 reached of rewarding patentees upon the basis of 

 "a willing licensor and willing licensee bargain- 

 ing upon equal terms," it would have been alto- 

 gether unjust to refuse similar terms to those 

 who abstained from securing recompense as of 

 legal right. 



A class of case which presented difficulty was 

 where a general idea or suggestion of extreme 

 importance had been put forward, but had 

 not been extended to a concrete example. Without 

 the idea there could have been no embodiment ; 

 without the embodiment the idea would have been 

 useless. The embodiment might have been solely 

 due to the action of Government officials, yet it 

 would manifestly have been unjust to refuse to 

 acknowledge pecuniarily the originator of the 

 NO. 2683, VOL. 107] 



idea. In passing, we may remark that there is to 

 be found here a flaw in the protection afforded by 

 our Patent Law. So often the concrete example 

 which an inventor has put forward is virtually- 

 useless until the eye of the expert user has been 

 directed to it and suitable modification effected. 

 Such modification may not have within it, as the 

 law stands, that degree of inventive ingenuity 

 which would secure validity to a patent, but 

 without which, nevertheless, the original invention 

 would prove abortive. This consideration was 

 evidently present to the Commissioners, for in 

 every case their decision depended on how far 

 the inventive idea of each claimant, whether 

 proximately or remotely, caused or contributed to 

 the use by the Crown of the particular invention 

 or device. As the Report puts it, the claimant 

 had to show that his idea or device formed at 

 least a link in the chain of causation leading to 

 the use of the invention. 



Those who are in constant touch with inventors 

 know full well how the crudest ideas and the most 

 elementary notions are put forward from time to 

 time in all seriousness and with full belief in their 

 efficacy. It is also common knowledge that when 

 examples perfected by the close attention and pro- 

 longed application of the expert, without the 

 slightest knowledge of the suggestions of others, 

 become known, claims to inventorship are made 

 by those who had submitted their immature ideas. 

 So, too, the Commissioners found it necessary to 

 deal with a large number of claims which upon 

 their face showed no reasonable chance of success. 

 In order that the time of the Commissioners might 

 not be frittered away upon applications of a trifling 

 or negligible character, a preliminary sifting was 

 effected by a small committee. If the committee 

 was unfavourable to an investigation by the Com- 

 mission as a body, full opportunity was given, in 

 all but the most hopeless examples, for the appli- 

 cant to appear personally to urge his claim. This 

 procedure worked well. 



As regards the actual sums recommended to 

 the Treasury for disbursement, they do not appear 

 to have erred on the side of niggardliness. Pos- 

 sibly this was right. When it is remembered how 

 great, over and above normal commercial profits, 

 were those which were secured by contractors and 

 others to whom the manufacture of munitions was 

 deputed, it would seem just that the reward to 

 originators of the designs which were under con- 

 struction should bear some relation to the excess 

 of profits which the originators, in favour of 

 others, were primarily the cause of bringing into 



