10 
j Patent-Law Amendment . 
[January, 
truth of this consideration, these payments— modified per- 
haps in date or in amount — are retained in almost every 
suggested scheme for a new Patent Law. Nay, in one pro- 
posal, which would have lengthened the lifetime of a patent 
to twenty-one years, a third intermediate payment was 
adopted, thus giving the patent three chances of lapsing. 
In the abortive Patent Bills introduced by the late 
Ministry, and fortunately withdrawn, there was a clause 
which seemed to me particularly objectionable and dan- 
gerous. It was proposed that if any patent had not been 
brought into use on the large scale by a fixed term of its 
career, it should forthwith lapse and become public property. 
Such a proposal did not appear surprising in Bills which 
were, almost avowedly, drawn up on the assumption that 
patent-right is an abuse and a nuisance, — a “ monopoly,” as 
some call it, in flat contradiction to the authoritative defini- 
tion of monopolies laid down by Coke, — to be curtailed as 
much as possible. But the public may well think it strange 
to find the same suggestion put forward among the recom- 
mendations of the Society of Chemical Industry. They 
propose, namely, that if a patent has not been brought into 
operation upon a large scale by the fourth year it is to lapse, 
the invention of course then becoming public property ! 
There are certain plausible considerations which have led 
to this proposal, which is a too literal carrying out of the 
saying “ From him that hath not shall be taken away even 
that which he hath.” Its supporters will doubtless argue 
that if a patent has not been brought into extensive use on 
the large scale within the very short time specified, it must 
be practically valueless, and may consequently be cancelled 
without injury to the patentee, and with benefit to the com- 
munity at large, who may then at leisure avail themselves 
of any useful feature it may possess. Such considerations 
on a close examination, undertaken with an eye to equity, 
soon show themselves to be fallacious. It is certain that 
the eagerness of the public to avail themselves of a patented 
process bears no direct proportion to its utility. We do not 
find that a patentee is, as soon as his letters patent are duly 
sealed, overwhelmed with applications for licenses or with 
offers to buy the whole or a portion of his rights. Quite the 
contrary ; he is obliged to go out and seek to bring his im- 
provement under notice. He must go round like a traveller 
seeking for orders. He must exhibit and read papers, and 
correspond. Now all this requires abundant time, thorough 
business taCt, and plenty of money. Is the Council of the 
Society of Chemical Industry prepared to assert that an 
