Marcu 31, 1904] 
our law conform to that of our Continental rivals. 
We require, in the interests of our home trades and 
industries, that a patent shall be forfeited if it is 
worked abroad and not in this country. 
The grant of compulsory licenses has many dis- 
advantages. It requires often years of hard 
work, ingenuity, and the training of an ex- 
perienced staff before a patented article can be profit- 
ably manufactured on the large scale. Is it reason- 
able to expect that the foreign owner of the patent 
will impart such knowledge to the applicant for a 
compulsory license, or afford him any aid beyond the | 
meagre details of the patented process? Quite 
independently of this, the owner of the patent will 
‘cause as much delay as possible before he grants the 
license, and, in any circumstances, no application 
for a compulsory license can be made before the lapse 
of three years from the date of application. In 
addition, the onus is thrown on the British applicant 
to show that the non-working of the patent is un- 
fairly prejudicing any existing or the establishment of 
any new industry. There is thus little inducement to 
home manufacturers to take out licenses for foreign 
patents, and thereby to introduce the manufacture of 
the article into this country. The non-working of 
foreign patents has inflicted incalculable harm on 
our trades. There is, in my opinion, only one 
effective measure with regard to working foreign 
patents, and this is to make it compulsory to 
work them on an adequate manufacturing scale 
say twelve months from the date the invention 
is worked in foreign countries. We have more 
reason, or at least our interests demand it in a higher 
degree than those of any other country in the world, 
to insist that the onus should be on the foreign owner 
of a patent to work the monopoly which we have 
granted to him in this country so long as it has been 
proved that the patent is workable. The working of 
patents is an economic question of the highest import- 
ance, but it ought not to be discussed from the platform 
of either the free importer or the protectionist. Its 
consideration is beyond the present fiscal controversy 
because the grant of a monopoly to any person, that is, 
the grant of a sole and exclusive privilege, is in itself 
the highest form of protection, but our legislature since 
the time of James I. has established this form of mono- 
pcly, and rightly continued to exercise it. 
Before James I.’s time, patents were granted to any 
one—not necessarily an inventor—who introduced a 
new manufacture into this country, and I think not 
unjustly. The man who establishes a new manu- 
facture does more good to the community than 
thousands of patentees who work monopolies which 
we have granted to them outside of this country. 
The first Patent Act, the Statute of Monopolies of 
James I., introduced so far a change that it con- 
firmed the right of granting patents to the first and 
true inventor, but on the condition that he introduced 
a new manufacture in this country. This law has 
been enforced to this day by every prominent industrial 
country in Europe except by ourselves, and I will now 
endeavour to show why no country in the world has 
a greater interest than our own to insist that the 
grant of a foreign patent should be on the condition 
of its being worked in this country always provided 
that it is worked abroad. 
(1) We grant a far larger number of monopolies to 
1 At the annual meeting of the Association of Chambers of Commerce of 
the United Kingdom held in London, the following resolution was passed on 
March 10, that “‘ whilst welcoming the instalment of reform secured by the 
Patent Law Amendment Act of rgo2, further amendment is needed in order 
to secure the forfeiture of all foreign patents for inventions workable in this | 
country, which are not so worked within a reasonable limit of time.” 
NO. 1796, VOL. 69] 
NATURE 
tS) 
foreigners, and on much easier terms, in consequence 
of a lack of a thorough examination into novelty, than 
other European countries. 
(2) Progress depends on improvements and new in- 
ventions; we are, however, as little self-contained as 
regards the supply of ideas as we are with regard 
to the supply of food. We must largely rely on 
foreign inventions for the reason that our population 
is only a small portion of that of Europe and 
America. 
(3) We have free imports, whilst the foreign patentee 
is protected by high tariffs. It is therefore, as a 
rule, not in his interest to work in this country the 
monopoly which we have granted to him. He prefers 
to work it in the country which gives him high pro- 
tection, with the additional advantage of selling to us 
his patented article, without any restrictions, and at 
his own price. This is the converse to dumping. 
Nor has he any other inducement, special circum- 
stances excepted, voluntarily to establish new indus- 
tries in the United Kingdom. Our patent law does not 
attract him, nor does our high duty on alcohol, nor 
do higher wages and shorter hours, nor our rates 
for transport, which are about twice as high compared 
with those, for example, of Germany. The want of 
compulsory working is one of the reasons that for the 
last twenty years we have established so very few 
new trades or industries in comparison with other 
nations. 
It is, therefore, of grave importance that our legis- 
lature ought only to grant monopolies on the clearly 
defined condition that such monopoly must be worked 
within this country. We stand in serious need of 
finding additional occupation for our people. Employ- 
ment in our staple industries we do positively know is 
declining, with one or two exceptions, nor is the 
total increase in the number of persons employed in 
all trades adequate to the nett increase of our popula- 
tion. The latter contention may be at least safely 
assumed by the fact of rapidly increasing emigration, 
and the increase in the number of unemployed and of 
those who are working at a starvation wage. 
America is the only industrial country of any 
importance which does not insist on the working of 
a patent, nor does she require such an enactment. 
She has protected herself by almost prohibitory tariffs, 
which in themselves afford the greatest inducement to 
the owner of a patent to work it or get it worked, in- 
stead of paying exorbitant import duties, which, in 
many instances, may nullify the advantages of the 
patented improvement. It may be generally said that 
the higher the import duties the less the necessity for 
compulsory working, and vice versa, the lower the im- 
port duty the more stringent should be the law as to 
working. There cannot be any doubt that had we 
amended our patent laws in 1877, when patent laws 
were first established in Germany, in such a manner 
as to make them conform to the latter, a large number 
of industries would have been established in this 
country which do not exist to-day. The German 
patent laws have largely stimulated enterprise, and (as 
Privy Councillor Dr. Otto Witt said a few years ago) 
““have conferred incalculable advantages on German 
trades and industries.”’ 
Ours have been chiefly instrumental in advancing 
| the industrial and commercial interests of our foreign 
competition. The whole nation is in arms, for and 
against, when it is a question to put a shilling tax 
on corn, but we are content to leave to a few lawyers 
and patent agents the decision of a question of a 
purely economic character which largely involves our 
industrial and commercial future. When is our 
