1879.] The Pirate's Sheet-Anchor . 623 
with the words “ It is alleged.’ 4 We are there told that 
“ simultaneous discovery is the rule, independent invention 
the rare exception ; that, in faCt, a patent is ordinarily 
assigned to the mere accident of priority, to the detriment 
of others who have as effectively found out the power or the 
process appropriated.” 
Mr. R. A. Macfie, in his recent work “ Copyright and 
Patents for Inventions ” (Preface, v. and vi.), writes — “ An 
invention may be, and commonly is, originated by a plurality 
of persons in complete independence and ignorance one of 
another, and of what each other does or has done.” 
The present writer cannot for one moment admit the 
validity, or even the relevance, of this contention. The 
champions of piracy admit, as we see, that in a minority of 
cases, at any rate, an invention originates from a single 
individual exclusively, no other person having been searching 
or experimenting in the same direction. In such cases, 
then, the argument entirely fails, and the invention, for any- 
thing our opponents have yet advanced, must at once be 
classed as property. 
But further, the assertion that “ simultaneous discovery is 
the rule ” must be termed a grave exaggeration, improbable 
on a priori grounds, and questionable as regards the evidence 
upon which it rests. If we consider what multitudes of 
known and admitted desiderata exist in addition to the vastly 
greater number of instances where the room for an invention 
exists unrecognised ; if we reflect, moreover, that the solu- 
tion of each such industrial problem, chemical or mechanical, 
may be attempted or even effected by a plurality of methods, 
we shall see that there is a great antecedent improbability 
in the notion of a number of independent inventors simul- 
taneously originating the very same novelty. We are well 
aware that when a certain want or difficulty is felt, inventive 
minds will naturally turn their efforts in that direction. But 
as a rule, in as far as they are bond fide inventors, though in 
pursuit of the same objeCt they will proceed by different 
ways. Of this truth the history of modern invention fur- 
nishes some striking instances. The beautiful dye known 
as “ malachite green ” has been obtained simultaneously, or 
nearly so, by two distinct chemists “ in complete indepen- 
dence, and perhaps ignorance, one of another,” and on 
superficial examination this case might seem to tell in favour 
of Mr. Macfie and his friends. But if we look more closely 
into the matter we shall see that Doebner, of Berlin, pre- 
pares his malachite green by the joint aCIion of dimethyl 
aniline, chloride of zinc, and benzo-trichloride. Fischer, of 
VOL. ix. (n.s.) 2 R 
