T H E J O U R N A L O F I-VDUSTRIAL A N D ENGINEERING CHE;1IISTRY
Sept., 1921
be found in a public \!:iter supply. I n this coniiectioli it is interesting to note that in the work a t Milwaukee, to which Mr, Doiiddson refers, the phenol determination did not rest upon a definite quantitative chemical tcst but upoil the chemist‘s sense of taste and smell after chlorinating x n r ? t P i ’ quspected of containing ~ihenols. One of the prime factors promoting the study of this problem and influencing us in publishing our results was the fact that the chcmist who had charge of the i?Iilmaulree studies encomtered similar conditions a t Cleveland aiid was a t d loss for a definite method for determining phenols in water. It was deemed inadvisable to include in the oi.igina1 article a discussion of this and similar points, since an attempt \vas made to outline briefly only the essential points in connection with the test from the laboratory standpoint. For this reaSon also a detailed djscuspion of the various substances which respond to the F‘oliii Denis test was not presented. In our opinion it mould be a somewhat hopeless task to attempt, a s suggested by Mr. Donaldson, any differentiation of the large group of phenolic compounds likely to be found iii waters. It would be much more promising to make :I study of the wastes from individual establishments before such materials enter a water supply. This, of course, is a subject not considered in the article under discussion. R. D, SCOTT STATZI DBPARTXBXT OF HZIALTH COLUMBUB, OHIO July 5, 1921
Assignment of Patents Editor of the Journal of Industrial and Engirteering Chemistru: The findings of fact and law in the action by Air Reduction Co., Inc., against Warren R. Walker, to which referwill perhaps ence is made in the July issue of the JOURNAL, leave your readers in doubt a s to the governing principle of the decision. The action was brought to compel assignment by Walker to the Company of an application for Letters Patent covering a n invention made jointly by Walker with Floycl J. Metzger and involves the right of the eniployer t o inventions made by an employee. This right has been the subject of numerous controversies aiid. in the absence of espress agreement, depends upon the character of the einyloyment. Walker‘s relation t o his employer in this case is stated i n tlie deciqioii of Mr. Justice Cropsey, from which the following is quoted : There was no express agreement making any inr7entfon of the defendant the property of tlie plaintiff, nor was there a c y express agreement that the clefendact would assign to the plaintiff any patelit he might obtain. But he was eniployed to give his time and scientific skill for the very purliose of trying to discover and invent some practical use for this gas. I n other words, he sold his inventive powers to the plaintiff during the period of his employment. Under these circumstances I think there is a n implied agreement that the results of defendant’s work shall belong to plaintiff and that any patent obtained by defendant should be assigned by him (Annin v, Wren, 44 Hun, 352; Connelly Jffg. Go. v. Wattles, 40 N. J. Eq., 92; Meissner v. Standard Railway Equipment Co., 190 S. W. Rep., 730; Supreme Court of Missouri; Dowse v. Federal Rubber Co., 254 Fed. Rep. 305; Famous Players-Lasky Cornoration Ewing, 194 Pac. lieu. k‘5. C x l . ) . S o case in this state holding t h e contrary 116s been brought to the Court’s attention. Clark Y. Fernoline Chemical ‘20. ( 5 Supl,., 190) decides only a question of pleading. I t s statements upon this subject a r e pureli obiter. There are deother jurisdictiolls which Seem to be at cisions rariance with those above cited (see American Circular 1 7 .
849
Loom Co. v. Wilson, 198 Mass., 1S2, 201 ; Dalzell v. Dueber JIfg. Go., 149 U. S., 315; Barber v. National Carbon Go., 129 Fed. Rep., 370; Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Hansen, 137 Fed. Rep., 403; I-iildreth 7’. D u b , 143 Fed. Rep., 139; Hapgood Y. Hewitt. 119 U. s.,226). Some of these cases may be distinguishable, b u t even if they Lie not, I believe the
sounder rule is set forth in the cases first cited. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled only to a shop right to use the patent, but is entitled t o orvn it ontrjght, and hence should have judgment against the defendant, with costs. It m a y also be o i interert t o note the langviage of Mr. Justice P r a t t in Sniiin r. nrren, 44 Hun. 332, which is R S follon~s: The special service of i m e n t i n g under special employment l o incent gives the master the servant’s inventions which result from that service. (Simonds Xaiiual of I’qteiit Lam (Ed. 1583) pp. 202-204). This is also the principle of that part of the decision of Burr v. DeLaVergne (102 N. Y. 415), which relates to the inrentions made by DeLaVergne alone. The same is true of Binney v. hnnan ( 9 Am. Rep. 10; 107 Mass. 94). None of the patent cases are inconsistent with the priiiciples above indicated. Even in Hapgood v. Hewitt (11 Fed. Rep. 422), lately affirmed (110 Fed. Rep. 227), Judge Gresham excepts the case of a special eniployment to incent. The special service of inventing is the entire scope of the employment. There is no room left within the employment for inpenting on his own hook. The servant has no right to think o r invent for himself on this particular subject matter in hand. He must get out of such a relation before he can claim the product of his work under such an employment. H e cannot carry off both his salary and the only valuable product of his work under such an employment, leaving his master with his useless models, the result of his uselessly spent money on tools, machinery, time, labor of self and employees with only a license or shop right, which is not assignable or useful in any way than to himself. The foregoing will serve to indicate quite clearly the relation of employer and employee with respect to inventions, where the employee is engaged in research or is employed for the purpose of making inventions. E. H. MERCHANT AIR REDUCTION C O INC. 342 3 f A D I S O T AVE.]’ K E W YORIC CITY
August 3, 1921
~~
A Study on the Oil Bromide Test of Linseed Oil This drawing was inadvertently omitted from its proper position in coiurnn 1, page 802, of this issue.
B
A t the twelfth annual convention of the Flavoring Extract Manufacturers Association, the Resolutions Committee brought in a report declaring for a strict observance of all provisions in the prohibition amendment. This recommendation, together with a n agreement binding members of the association in a war against unscrupulous It extract manufacturers, was adopted unanimously. was also agreed that ‘the flavoring extract men shouId instruct the Research Committee t o continue its effoits t o find a substitute for alcohol. A t the executive session, the association pledged itsel€ to force certain manufacturers who a r e not members of the association, and who are evading the Volstead law, out of the business.
