LOST ARTS .W THE ^''ATENT OFFICE. 283 



The described spring and follower whei^, ih use, tend to press the labels out- 

 wardly and upwardly so that their upper edges project quite or nearly out of the_ 

 front opening. This improvement has been patented by Mr. Boyd Keith, oif 

 Kansas City. 



LOST ARTS IN THE PATENT OFFICE, 



W. R. KIRK. 



It is not the intention to inquire into the lost arts or the obscure theories of 

 the past, but rather to consider the practical relation of Patent Laws to those arts 

 that have fallen into neglect and been abandoned by reason of the defects in 

 these laws. That such laws offer great encouragement to the development of the 

 arts needs no proof in the midst of the great changes that are taking place. It 

 has been conclusively proven that nations which do not recognize property-right 

 in inventions not only fail to bring to light the theories of their own inventors, 

 but cannot successfully adopt the perfected improvement of other nations. A 

 patent is a contract between the government and the individual in which the 

 interest of the public is as much of an object as the personal rights of the inventor.. 

 The government stipulates before granting a patent that the applicant shall make 

 a full and free description of the improvement, so that it will enable any one 

 skilled in the arts to construct the same, and in consideration of this it guaran- 

 tees to him the exclusive right for a limited time. 



It is presumed that the assurance of absolute control for this stated time willl 

 be a sufficient incentive for him to overcome the mechanical difficulties and edu- 

 cate the public to a sense of its value. This is the object and the ordinary work- 

 ing of Patent Laws, but there are times when events do not flow in the channels, 

 marked out for them : it is this feature that will be considered. The ultimate 

 gain it will confer upon society is the prime factor in granting patents, for if it 

 was held that progress was fatal to society no maudlin sentiment of personal' 

 rights would justify such protection. If this view of the proposition be true, are 

 there not times when the courts are bound to follow rules in direct opposition to 

 it ? In illustration of this : some one applies for a patent. It may be that he 

 caught the idea from some antiquated relic or he may have reasoned it out from 

 his own stand-point, but when he applies for a patent he is referred to some pre- 

 vious one or some other evidence that some one has discovered it, although it 

 may never have been worked to a successful issue. 



The law, while assuming that individual control was necessary to develop 

 inventions, in the absence of the original inventor, decrees that, they must be lett 

 to their own fate. The first inventor may have been in advance of his time or 

 he might not have appreciated its value. In that event it is not credited to him. 

 If the law was designed only to reward the original inventor it would have accom- 

 plished about all that could reasonably be expected of it,, but are there not 



