February 21, 19 18] 



NATURE 



485 



Mr^ Walter B. Priest would regularise procedure 

 ?uid render its operation more certain by assimir 

 lating application for State aid to that which 

 obtains when a patent is; solicited of the Crowja. 

 Mr. Priest has accordingly drafted a Bill, a notice 

 of which appeared in Nature for January 21, 1909 

 (vol. Ixxix., p. 345). He has since followed up 

 the matter by addressing a series of " Observa- 

 tions " to the Committee of the Privy Council for 

 Scientific and Industrial Research, together with 

 a copy of the Bill and the remarks which accom- 

 panied the publication in 1910 of the third edition 

 of the Bill. 



The provisions of Mr. Priest's Bill follow closely 

 the Patents Act, 1907, an Act which, while pre- 

 scribing the method of applying for a patent,* 

 modified the substantive law in certain particulars. 



According to the plan set out in the Bill and in 

 the " Observations," pecuniary grants 

 may be restricted to scientific discoveries and improve- 

 ments in means and appliances not of a patentable 

 nature which, after investigation in accordance with 

 the provisions of the scheme, are found to have effected 

 or contributed to the attainment of purposes of general 

 utility and advantage subsequently to the applications 

 for such grants. 



If, however, it should appear that the subject in 

 respect of which an application for a grant was 

 made was of a patentable nature, the applicant was 

 not thereby fb be prejudiced, except in so far as 

 he might be cadled upon to refund what had 

 already been granted, on the assumption that the 

 discovery was not of a patentable nature. 



The proposed Bill speaks freely of " dis- 

 coveries " in respect of which benefits are to be 

 received, as though the full significance of the 

 word was readily perceptible. But what a dis- 

 covery may be, or a discovery as opposed to an 

 invention, and where the one ends and the other 

 begins, are scarcely even adumbrated. 



In patent law a difficulty similar in kind to this 

 is presented when the attempt, usually futile, is 

 made to distinguish between mventions which are 

 said to be based on a " principle " and those which 

 do not embody a " principle, " Usually those who 

 talk most of " principles " in this connection con- 

 fuse the idea of a principle with an object to be 

 achieved, a problem to be solved, or an end to be 

 attained; and a century and more of litigation has 

 failed to elicit a simple and, at the same time, 

 indisputable account of what is understood when 

 this distinction is brought forward. Indeed, the 

 complete meaning of the word " principle," not 

 only, in patent law, but also in many another situa- 

 tion, requires much exposition. So with the word 

 " discovery," which looms so largely in the pro- 

 posed Bill, for difficulties not unlike these would 

 undoubtedly be encountered in the endeavour to 

 distinguish a discovery, in respect of which a grant 

 IS to be given, from an invention, for which the 

 reward is a patent. 



Seemingly, however, the question as between a 



discovery and an invention is^ to be relegated to a 



body of examiners or advisers, to whom also the 



settlement of other points is. to be entrusted. In, 



NO. 2521, VOL. 100] 



some instances the Judicial Committee of the Privy 

 Council is to be called in aid, or, since the estab- 

 lishment of the Advisory Committee of the Privy 

 Council for Scientific and Industrial Jlesearch, this 

 committee may be substituted for the Judicial 

 Committee. 



A further notable omission in the scheme 

 presented by the Bill is the absence of relief to the 

 individual, who, having found out some profound 

 " law of Nature," at once ingenuously announces 

 it to the society of which he may be a distinguished 

 member. By so doing he often prepares the way 

 for another, who, not having been mentally con- 

 gested with the work which led up to the dis- 

 covery, seizes upon its practical application and 

 for his own advantage embodies it in an invention 

 and forthwith applies for a patent. The origi- 

 nator of the idea, in these circumstances, is at 

 the mercy of the subsequent exploiter. Even if 

 this questionable action has not taken place, the 

 originator may by his announcement liave pre- 

 cluded himself from embodying his discovery in 

 an invention for which a valid patent could be 

 obtained, since for a valid patent no previous 

 publication is, in, general, permissible. 



But no useful purpose would be served by dis- 

 cussing the various clauses of the Bill, for although 

 it might be highly desirable to regularise procedure 

 for obtaining grants in aid of scientific research, 

 yet to model a. scheme upon that adopted for 

 obtaining a patent seems to be inadvisable. As 

 the Patents Act stands at the present day, it is 

 incomprehensible without interpretation, while its 

 meaning is usually not what it expresses, as judged 

 by meanings ordinarily attaching to words. In 

 what to the uninitiated is clear and permitting of 

 no dispute, a wealth of judicial exposition is un- 

 folded, whereby curious and recondite meanings 

 are found to be hidden in passages apparently 

 clear and simple. Indeed, the Patents Act is the 

 result of. historical accident and must be inter- 

 preted by reference to history. To apply its pro- 

 visions to procedure for obtaining a money grant 

 would be at the outset to tie the hands effectually 

 and to obscure the vision of those to whom the 

 examination of applications and the allocation of 

 moneys were entrusted. Far simpler methods — 

 methods more in touch also with modern require- 

 ments — could, readily be devised. Even at the^ 

 present moment a system is in operation whereby 

 inchoate inventions, whether based upon new or 

 old discoveries, receive the help of Government 

 and are brought to fruition, to the mutual advan- 

 tage of inventor and State. But whatever opinions 

 may be held upon schemes hitherto propounded, 

 for the stiinulation of scientific discovery and for 

 the rewarding of investigation, it, is clear that a 

 collation of all known and- workable schemes 

 should be undertaken and a serious consideration 

 of them as a whole put in hand. Whether assist- 

 ance be given by way of pecuniary grant for defi- 

 nite research or through the medium of industrial, 

 scholarships, or whether reward be proportioned 

 to results already achieved — results consisting in 

 discoveries or the application of scientific truths 



