514 
IA TO LEE: 
[Marcu 31, 1904 
have been paid for this privilege on a single garcero 
during one season. In spite of the slaughter of 
thousands of these birds, the garceros continue to be 
used by the egrets, but in ever diminishing numbers. 
The beauty of a few feathers on their backs will be 
the cause of their extinction. The love of adornment 
common to most animals is the source of their 
troubles. The graceful plumes which they doubtless 
admire in each other have appealed to the vanity of 
the most destructive of all animals. They are doomed 
because the women of civilised countries continue to 
have the same fondness for feathers and ornaments 
characteristic of savage tribes.”’ 
In concluding this notice of a very interesting book, 
we have only to add that there are numerous illustra- 
tions—of which, through the courtesy of the publishers, 
we reproduce one—a map showing the author’s route, 
and a full index. 
PATENT LAWS. 
E question of our patent law legislation is 
again coming into prominence, probably owing 
to its close relationship to other great economic con- 
troversies now occupying the mind of the country. 
It is, however, singular that although this is mainly 
an economic question, the subject of our patent laws 
is invariably discussed solely from the standpoint of 
the inventor. There are in reality two interests which 
must always be jointly considered, namely the interests 
of the inventor and the interests of the community. 
In a letter which recently appeared in the Journal 
of the Society of Arts, Mr. C. D. Abel, the well-known 
patent agent, argues that our patent laws are 
certainly more advantageous to the inventor than 
either the law of the United States or of Germany. 
If this be true, may I ask who derives the benefit of 
our benevolence? Is it not chiefly the foreign 
inventor and the foreign manufacturer who are the 
gainers, and our community who pays for it? 
Natural inventiveness and natural ingenuity being 
equally spread over the white races, we should possess 
the portion allotted to a population of forty-two 
millions as compared with a total white population of 
roughly 440 millions. It it be true, therefore, as Mr. 
Abel states, that this country confers greater advan- 
tages on inventors than any other, are these advantages 
not conferred on ten foreign inventurs to each one of 
our own country? 
Space forbids me to analyse closely the minor points 
in which Mr. Abel seeks to find advantages for the 
inventor in our law not afforded by the American or 
German law. Let me turn at once to what Mr. Abel 
calls (from the inventor’s point of view) the crux of 
the question. 
Mr. Abel appears to be thoroughly satisfied with the 
examination into novelty which has been adopted by 
the Act of 1902. This need occasion no surprise, as 
he states that he himself proposed the system. I 
must, however, as I did when Mr. Abel first published 
them, raise strong objections to the figures by which 
he attempts to show that the grant of a German 
patent, in spite of real and thorough examination 
into novelty, does not confer a better title and greater 
security to the patentee than a British patent. Mr. 
Abel states that just the same proportion of litigated 
patents were declared void in Germany as in Great 
Britain in the year 1896. I desire to point out that 
quite apart from Mr. Abel’s figures the proportion of 
patents declared void is a matter of no consequence 
whatever in this connection. The greater security of 
a German patent lies in the fact that out of about 
15,000 applications to the German Patent Office, less 
NO. 1796, VOL. 69} 
PH 
| year—but also four preceding years. 
than 6000 are granted. This weeding out of gooo 
patents, by a careful and searching preliminary ex- 
amination, carried out by a competent court, enhances 
the value of, and gives greater security to, a German 
patent. In this respect, the Act of 1902, although an 
improvement on the old Act, is still satisfactory 
neither to inventors nor to industrial interests. Even 
if it were true, as Mr. Abel suggests, that as many 
patents are annually declared null and void in the 
German courts as in our own, there would be more 
than one good reason to account for this. Let me 
briefly repeat some of the reasons, from a pamphlet 
which I published in igor. 
(1) Probably half of our patents are not worth fight- 
ing for, as they are not worth the paper on which 
they are printed. 
(2) Patent legislation, in this country, for a man 
of moderate means spells financial ruin, while in 
Germany redress is open at a very much smaller 
expense. 
(3) Account must be taken of the difference in the 
length of life between English and German patents. 
But Mr. Abel’s figures are misleading. Whether he 
intentionally took the year 1896 in order to strengthen 
his case or merely at random, as he says, is of little 
importance. The fact remains, and this he ought to 
have known, that fair or trustworthy conclusions can- 
not be arrived at by statistics of a single year. I took 
the trouble to point out to Mr. Abel in 1901 that 1896 
was an exceptional year, and prepared a table from 
official sources, which covers not only 1896—Mr. Abel’s 
This table, being 
prepared from accurate official sources, was neces- 
sarily arranged in a slightly different manner. It did 
not include patents litigated or patents partially in- 
validated ; as no trustworthy statistics exist, a good deal 
of patent litigation is carried on without coming into 
court, or without being published in the official report 
of patent cases. 
Mr. Abel’s Table, 
Patents wholly 
or partially 
invalidated 
Patents litigated 
14,105 29 13 
5,410 102 43 
Table Compiled from German Official Sources for 
1892 to 1896. 
Patents 1896 Patents granted 
Great Britain ... 
Germany 
Patents invalidated, 
; Saere Patents ° 
Year Applications granted includigg paceuts 
1892 13,126 5,900 10 
1893 14,265 6,430 12 
1894 14,964 6,280 22 
1895 15,063 5,720 18 
1896 16,486 5,410 32 
It will be seen from this table that thirty-two 
patents were withdrawn and invalidated in 1896, whilst 
the average for the four preceding years is only 15-5 
per annum. So much about Mr. Abel’s figures. 
I quite concede that a searching and real preliminary 
examination is a controversial subject, but from an 
economic standpoint it must be admitted that the want 
of conformity existing between our law and that of 
Germany as to preliminary examination inflicts great 
injury on our trades. For example, the grant of a 
British patent to a foreign applicant which his own 
ccuntry has refused to him benefits the foreign country 
at our expense, the loss to us being proportionate to the 
value of the invention. 
The compulsory working of foreign patents in this 
country is, however, a far more serious question than 
‘‘preliminary examination as to novelty.’”’ The Act 
of 1902 only dealt with compulsory licenses, and, so 
far as it goes, it is an improvement of the old Section 
22, but more stringent measures are wanted to make 
