G.— ENGINEERING 147 



economic chaos. ' There should be a moratorium as regards scientific 

 research and development,' said one preacher to the British Association. 

 ' The world would have been a better place if the internal combustion 

 engine had not been invented,' said another. ' If it were not for the 

 immense increase of automatic machines and of labour-saving devices, 

 we should not have the problem of unemployment,' says the press. True 

 enough, we should not. But the invention of a machine does not compel 

 the use thereof. Let him who holds these views, return home, smash his 

 lawn-mower and his wife's sewing-machine, and engage gardeners to cut 

 the grass with shears, and seamstresses to hem by hand the household 

 sheets. To rid the world of machines needs a change of attitude towards 

 occupation, a love of monotonous work for its own sake, a real desire for 

 real work and not merely for the reward thereof. Que messieurs les 

 assassins commencent ! 



Yet another view was often urged during the period of blackest 

 depression, and still is sometimes heard : ' If our inventors were more 

 fertile and our engineers more enterprising,' it is said, ' they could introduce 

 new industries in the distressed areas.' But the man who writes thus 

 can have little knowledge of the real facts. It is not merely that the 

 Englishman is essentially cautious and conservative, nor that the inventor 

 is unduly optimistic — though these things are true enough. The whole 

 legal system in this country is framed in such a way as to thwart the 

 inventor who would create a new industry. Generally, the only way to 

 proceed is by taking out a patent. This is of no use unless pirates can be 

 restrained. To defend a patent, or to attack an alleged infringement, 

 involves incredible legal expense ; and large firms, knowing this, will 

 unblushingly copy an invention, relying on the inability of the patentee to 

 finance an attack. The Patent Office, having granted the letters patent, 

 takes no further interest. Let me give an illustration of the course of a 

 patent action from my own experience. ' A ' sued ' B ' for infringement. 

 Each party immediately promised to indemnify his users against a demand 

 for royalties if he lost. In the first court, after three weeks' hearing, ' A ' 

 lost. The case went to appeal and ' B ' lost. ' A's Counsel, coming 

 from court after the appeal, happened to meet the judge of the former trial. 

 The judge asked how the appeal had gone. ' Your judgment was 

 reversed, my Lord,' was the reply. ' Ah,' said the judge, ' I thought it 

 might be ; I could hardly understand a word about it ! ' ' B ' could not 

 afford to carry the case to the Lords and, in fact, went bankrupt, so that his 

 users received no protection from the indemnity. The case cost in all 

 £30,000 ; more than half of which was incurred in trying to get a decision 

 before a judge who admitted that he could not understand the technicalities. 

 The costs were swollen by Counsel, who pressed for Juniors and introduced 

 side-issues, which, I thought, lengthened the hearing unnecessarily, and 

 thus entailed too many ' refreshers.' There is no hope for the patentee 

 in this country under such a clumsy, ineffective system ; but to change it 

 will be difficult. It will be necessary to break through the resistance of a 

 thoroughly case-hardened Bar, and engineers know what that means. I 

 believe that this Association is the only body with the necessary prestige 



