lxvi REPORT — 1879. 



Privy Council to prolong a patent after fourteen years, and to the substitution for 

 this of an extension of twenty-one years, as of right to all patentees, who, at the 

 end of twelve years, pay a further stamp duty of 100/., the Committee think it 

 probable that so long a term as a matter of right may be objected to, and may 

 imperil the Bill. It is true that the Privy Council now recommend prolongation 

 to the extent, in some cases, of as much as seven years (indeed longer extensions 

 have been recommended), but they only do so on strict proof (however useful the 

 invention may be) that the patentee has not been sufficiently remunerated, while 

 the twenty-one years as of right, proposed by the Bill, would obviously be accepted 

 by every prosperous patentee, and thus a more than sufficient payment might be 

 made by the public for the disclosure and bringing into operation of the invention. 

 Influenced by these considerations, the Committee are inclined to suggest that the 

 seventeen years' duration of patents in the United States might well be adopted 

 here. If the Bill were thus modified, it would become necessary to alter the times 

 of payment of the various stamp duties, and as the Committee are of opinion that 

 three years from the date of the patent (which is but two years from the cessa- 

 tion of the provisional protection) is so short a time as in many instances not to 

 suffice for such development of the patent as to enable the patentee to come to a 

 right decision on the question whether he will allow his patent to lapse or to pay 

 the stamp duty of 501., they recommend that the time for this first payment should 

 be four years from the date of the patent. 



The following is the resolution in which the Committee have embodied their 

 opinion on this subject : — 



Resolved unanimously, — " That this Committee would have thought an ex- 

 tension from fourteen to seventeen years sufficient compensation for the loss 

 of the power to apply for a prolongation, but whether the seventeen or 

 twenty-one years be adopted as the term of the patent, the Committee are 

 of opinion that the times of cesser and the dates of payment to carry on 

 the patent for a certain term should be at the end of four, eight, and 

 fourteen years from the date of the patent." 



Clause 17. — The liberty to amend, by way of supplement, is, in the judgment 

 of the Committee, a most important improvement. 



Clause 18. — The Committee hold the same opinion with respect to the pro- 

 vision that the Crown shall pay royalties for the use of a patent. They would be 

 glad if some better machinery could be devised for settling (failing agreement) 

 what the royalty should be, but they have no suggestion to make on the subject. 



Clause 19. — This clause, it will be seen, makes a patent voidable after three 

 years on either of two grounds, failure to use or to properly endeavour to do so, 

 proof of which shall be on the patentee ; and refusing to grant licenses to proper 

 persons, on terms to be imposed by the Chancellor. 



It appears to the Committee that if the second of these conditions be enacted, the 

 first is unnecessary, as it is clear that a patent cannot be regarded as an obstruction 

 to manufacture, when any responsible manufacturer wishing to use it can do so by 

 paying a reasonable royalty, and the Committee believe that the first condition 

 might readily be abused, for instance, in those cases where an invention relates to 

 subjects which from their nature cannot be, with certain classes of inventors, put 

 into operation by the patentees themselves, such as where a scientific man uncon- 

 nected with trade or commerce has made an improvement in blast furnaces or in 

 steam navigation. In these cases the inventor is at the mercy of those who own 

 blast furnaces, or who own ocean steamers, and it is quite conceivable that such 

 persons might band themselves together to prevent the use of the patent during 

 the first three years of its existence. Bearing this danger in mind of the abuse of 

 the first condition, and looking at the fact that the existence of a patent subject to 

 compulsory licenses would not be an impediment to the manufacture, the Com- 

 mittee desire to see the first condition expunged, and, as regards the second 

 condition, they trust that the words which were in the Government Bill of 1877, 

 may be inserted, and that thereby the proof of the need of licenses may be imposed, 

 as in their judgment it should be upon the person seeking them. 



