424, SECTIONAL TRANSACTIONS.—E*. 
Monday, September 28. 
Discussion on Patents and the Protection of Scientific Discovery. (Chairman : 
Mr. J. Swrvpurne, F.R.S.) 
Mr. A. G. Broxam.—Improvements in Patents from the Inventor's Angle. 
1. The inventor desires a valid patent but too often finds himself possessed of one 
having no subject-matter. 
2. One reason for this is that the Patent Agent, owing to the official search as to 
novelty, has ceased to be the judge whether a patent application shall be filed and 
has had the duty thrust upon him of obtaining a patent for an invention verbally 
novel but devoid of subject-matter. 
3. The British Science Guild recommended that the search should be made as 
soon as a provisional specification had been filed, but the Patent Committee rejected 
the recommendation as impracticable. 
4. This impracticability cannot be admitted. A preliminary claim could be 
submitted with the provisional specification, but not as a part thereof, and could be 
subjected to the Examiner’s search. 
5. The search would then, if necessary, be conducted in two stages—the pre- 
liminary search on the preliminary claim and a subsequent search on the claims 
submitted in any complete specification which might be filed in continuation of the 
application. 
6. By this procedure the applicant should receive the result of a search in time to 
prevent waste of effort and money in pursuing the invention ; fewer futile applica- 
tions would be completed. 
Mr. Husert A. Giti.—Expedition in Patent Litigation. 
The present system of rewarding inventors by the grant of patent monopolies 
has led to abuses because litigation over patents is extremely slow and expensive. 
Various remedies have already been proposed, including the introduction of a special 
division of the High Court with judges with technical qualifications, modifications in 
procedure in Court, and resort to arbitration. 
An enlargement of the powers of the Comptroller to enable him to try patent 
cases has also been discussed and is suggested as a possible remedy. 
It is also suggested that counsel experienced in patent litigation might be appointed 
to the post of an Official Referee for trying minor actions, and that such .a Referee 
might be given powers different from those of the Courts, so that he might give rulings 
on the validity, scope or infringement of a patent mainly on papers submitted to him. 
Mr. H. E. Porrs.—A Comparison of British and Foreign Patent Systems. 
The British patent system is clearly in need of reform. The paper first discusses 
the reports of the British Science Guild and the Board of Trade Committee. It is 
remarkable that these reports have not paid adequate attention to the experience 
of other countries. The paper draws such a comparison based, not upon the collation 
of documents, but upon actual personal experience. Concrete proposals are made 
which involve little or no expenditure, as the machinery is already in existence. 
The prejudices which have hindered the adoption of these reforms are discussed, | 
and it is believed that technical opinion will be mobilised in their favour. 
Dr. J. N. Gotpsmita.—Scientifie Property. 
‘Le sort du savant dans la cité est un probléme de tous les temps : lessai de | 
construction juridique auquel il a donné lieu remonte 4 quelques années seulement. 
Assurer aux auteurs de découvertes scientifiques, brevetables ou non, une part 
légitime dans les profits matériels résultant de Putilisation industrielle des dites 
découvertes, tel est objet de ce qu’on a voulu appeler la “ propriété scientifique.’ — 
This idea was put forward in 1921 by L. Klotz. Draft laws were submitted to the 
French Parliament by J. Barthelemy. The subject was taken up by the International 
Committee of Intellectual Co-operation of the League of Nations as the result of the 
intervention by the International Confederation of Scientific Workers. 
