518 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



July 



later, you will surely have your reward. Nothina 

 that we advert ISC, in (he shape of hives or implements, 

 is patented." 



Friend Koot, are you not laboring under a 

 strange delusion in thinking that, after such utter- 

 ances, you can " stand where you can appreciate 

 what friend Heddon " (or any one else) " has done 

 for the bee-keeping world"? Let him name that 

 word of ill savor, " patent," and, instead of any such 

 judicial impartiality, our unfortunate inventor 

 must expect to meet you full armed on the battle- 

 field; and if you can, you will, as a 7f »(i(//it of duty, 

 surely ride him down in the encounter! 



But let us suppose that the inventor of some 

 valuable patentable bee-device takes your advice, 

 and gives it to the public. Now, when all the 

 world lias a legal right to make and eell it without 

 any accounting to him, we will suppose that you do 

 what you have so often done and advised others to 

 do— send him a sum of money, that you may feel 

 honorably at liberty to make and sell his inven- 

 tion. ]f there is a good demand for it, what more 

 natural than that its inventor should think that he 

 ought to get more out of it than you have given 

 him? Tt is very easy for you to say, "Ihave no 

 monopoly on it. Let him make and sell it him- 

 self." How much does this help him, when he has no 

 Gleanings with over 8000 subscribers to make its 

 merits known at a minimum of cost, nor any big 

 factory where he can make it at a price that de- 

 fies outside competition? You have the market so 

 largely to yourself, that yovi inevitably get the 

 lion's share of the product of his brains. You can 

 reply to this, " Was not Gleanings and our supply- 

 business built up by honest industry? and is it not 

 the privilege of every one to build up a like busi- 

 ness for himself?" Indeed, these are the very 

 words which you used in writing to me, when I 

 called your attention to this common-sense view of 

 the matter. It does not seem to me to rise above 

 the level of what some of our gi-eat "trust" cor- 

 porations might sneeringly say to any poor dis- 

 tanced rival. 



Can you not see this, friend Root? If you can 

 not, truth re<iuires that I should say plainly to you, 

 that intelligent bee-keepers do see, that, how- 

 ever sincere you may be in teaching that it is 

 wrong to take out bee-patents, you preach a doc- 

 trine most admirably adapted to promote your own 

 pecuniary interests. 



In one of your comments (1883) on my views, you 

 said, " 1 would suggest that the improvements in 

 bee culture are almost invariably found to be the 

 work of many people; or, if you please, the result 

 of little suggestions thrown out by a great many 

 bee-keepers. In view of this, can any one man 

 very consistently attempt to monopolize the whole 

 of any invention?" In your late letter to Prof. 

 Cook you say, "When you get into this business of 

 individual rights, it is like deciding when sweet 

 cider becomes sour or intoxicating." As .this kind 

 of reasoning seems with some to have great weight, 

 I would ask, if bee-patents differ so widely from 

 those in other dejjartments, as seems to be taken 

 for granted by such a loose way of talking, who 

 can name a single valuable invention which is not 

 largely dependent upon the knowledge amassed by 

 others besides its inventor? We arc looking, for 

 example, at an Immense bridge, which, at a dizizy 

 height.spansa wide stream, in a better way than any 

 previous structure, and it does it because of eomo 



particular thing invented and patented by its de- 

 viser. Calling his attention to the many points 

 invented by others, each and all of which he admits 

 to be indispensable, would we even dare to hint to 

 him that, because he did not invent every one of 

 them, he had therefore no right to patent that 

 crowning feature which sprang from his own 

 brain? No, friend Root! Your sweet cider, so 

 gradually becoming acid that no one can designate 

 the precise time when it soured upon him, does not 

 seem to have much force in such a case. Every 

 inventor has a right to use in the perfection of his 

 own invention all that is the common property of 

 the world. If he can not succeed without using 

 tilings patented by others, both law and equity de- 

 mand that he purchase a license to use them. 



You say, " I would not stand side by side, and in 

 company with the class of men (with few excep- 

 tions) who have been in years past taking money for 

 individual riyhts, tov nM the gold in California." If 

 it is the mere fact of taking money for indi- 

 vidual rights which calls for such strong condem- 

 nation, why should you make any exceptions? 

 And why should not your old friend be deemed un- 

 worthy to stand by your side, or to keep company 

 with honorable men? I am sure that such a 

 thought never entered your mind when you pen- 

 ned that bitter invective, although it is a logical 

 inference from it. Then you are willing to admit, 

 that the selling of individual rights is not in itself a 

 crime. What you meant (and no doubt would have 

 said, if you had been in a more judicial mood, so that 

 you could have felt that it is the sacred duty of an 

 editor not to allow himself to be betrayed by the 

 facilities of a shorthand writer ever at his elbow, 

 to take down his incautious utterances), what you 

 meant, 1 repeat, was that you would not for untold 

 riches consent to fellowship with the humbugs and 

 swindlers who for these many years have been 

 shown in the columns of Gleanings as selling pre- 

 tended or worthless rights, to defraud the unwary. 

 I am happy to believe that it is not the simple fact 

 of an inventor selling Individual rights, but the 

 character of the men who have used this plan for 

 such dishonest purposes, that led you to make such 

 unguarded utterances. You assent to this state- 

 ment of your position, and at last we can meet on 

 some common ground; and I. who have probably 

 been most wronged by the kind of men you mean to 

 denounce, am glad to bear ttstimony that, for lo 

 these many years, however mistaken you have 

 been on some points, Gleanings has shown as 

 a beneficent heacon-light to warn all bee-keepers 

 against that race of individual-right dealers who 

 have shown neither honesty nor decency in their 

 dealings with the public. I am even sanguine 

 enough to think that there is a way by which all 

 fair-minded bee-keepers can unite, not only against 

 fraudulent but iniit'isc ways of selling bee-patents, 

 and yet not concede a single material point of their 

 honest convictions. Let me express the hope 

 that, in the next issue of Gleanings, 1 may be 

 able, by pointing it out, to pour oil upon our long- 

 troubled bee-waters. 



I close now by calling your attention to a fact 

 that you seem to have entirely overlooked; viz., 

 that, from the first issue of his patent, our friend 

 Heddon has always sold hives without requiring 

 purchasers to buy an individual right. 



Your sincere friend,— L- L- Langstuoth, 



Dayton, Ohio, June 8, 18^8, 



