198
T H E JOURNAL OF I N D U S T R I A L A N D ENGINEERING C H E M I S T R Y .
successful application of knowledge is a trained imagination. Not a n imagination “like the baseless fabric of a vision” nor “such stuff as dreams are made on,” but a n imagination based upon knowledge which furnishes a vision of what may be accomplished and suggests means for accomplishment. So it seems t o me t h a t the proper function of the undergraduate school is t o communicate knowledge of facts and methods and t h a t the function of the post-graduate school is t o furnish training in the application of knowledge to the solution of problems, t o the training of the imagination and thus t o meet t h e demands which the industries, consciously or not, are making. A most useful beginning in such work has been made in the laboratories for research in industrial chemistry lately established i n some of t h e leading technical institutions. Here the subjects for research, the applications of knowledge are not of a n abstract but of a concrete character, and provide training in work which may produce results immediately useful in the arts of life. Here the problems arising i n the industries in every-day work are solved by students, under direction of men who have themselves been trained in the solution of such problems. By such work the imagination is stimulated and at the same time trained and directed in proper channels-habits of application established which must be fruitful later on. The designers of these laboratories and t h e authorities who have ordered their organization and establishment, as well as the industries which have patronized and encouraged them all deserve t h e highest praise. It is a step in the right direction a n d one which must be taken in other educational institutions if t h e proper a n d most effective training of young men for the industries is t o be secured. What then should be the attitude of the industries t o postgraduate work? I answer, unhesitatingly, favorable. What should be t h e attitude of t h e technical institutions t o postgraduate work? I answer, without hesitation, favorable. Post-graduate work should be earnestly encouraged from both sides, from the educational and from the industrial, and particularly from the latter. It has been fully recognized in the German institutions by providing in the technical schools courses leading to the degree of “doctor of engineering,” and i n t h e university by the establishment of similar courses and providing for the same degrees. In all educational institutions the attainment of the degree of doctor-a degree not lightly appreciated nor glibly assumed i n Germany-involves work of investigation leading to results, work devoted to the application of knowledge and t h e solution of problems. The industries in Germany are wise i n choosing for their employees and directors those who have passed through the office of privatdocent and have had, therefore, experience i n the training and management of men. That men may become successful without this very extended and profound training is manifest in this country and is due largely to the men themselves. B u t even such men would be better equipped for their work by the training provided by the undergraduate and post-graduate schools and though frequently compelled by their necessities to enter upon their life work without i t they would save much labor and loss of time t o have had it. Many of those who, even with limited training in the schools, have been reasonably successful i n t h e industries and in their life work in this
Mar., 1909
country have a right to speak feelingly and affirmatively upon this point. May young men be overtrained? Surely in the laboratories and in the class-room a s in the gymnasium and on the athletic field; and they may be weakened, from a practical Standpoint, by their training. Y e t even these are often carried by their enthusiasm to eminent success. “Fools rush in where angels fear t o tread” applies equally well i n the world of science and industry as else&here, and the struggle to get out after the rush in has produced some of the best results the world has seen, though the influence and the method may not always have been recognized or acknowledged. Each one who has had experience may furnish evidence of this fact. Effort to correct errors of one’s own making often leads to splendid results. “Necessity is the mother of invention” and the needs of a man i n deep trouble makes him devise means which otherwise remain dormant and without utilization. Yet errors should be avoided, and the more thorough training should lead to this. Will the institutions meet this demand for better trained men? Will the new courses necessary t o i t be established? Of this there can scarcely be a doubt. The institutions are looking for the sign and will respond to i t when i t is plain. B u t what of the industries? Will the leaders make the sign prominent and clear? Will they d o their share? Do they know what their share is? And do they appreciate their responsibility ? First the institutions must know what is needed and the knowledge can be acquired only b y close relations with t h e industries. Teachers should have ready access t o the industries and their work for themselves and their students. Problems should be submitted to the research laboratories and needed means and materials provided. Such cooperation must certainly lead to important progress not only in the industries, b u t in the related sciences and progress under such circumstances is inevitable. May the influences which control have free course and be not only justified b u t glorified.
THE U. S. PATENT SYSTEM: ITS USE AND ABUSE. At the meeting of the New York Section of the American Chemical Society, held a t the Chemists’ Club, on January 8th, the general subject for the evening was “ T h e U. S. Patent System: its Use and Abuse.” The papers presented were as follows: F. I. Allen (late Comm’r of Patents) “ I n troduction. Historical and Descriptive” ;W. Hastings Swenarton (of the New York Bar, late of the Examining Corps, U. S P a t t n t (:.5ce) “Patents, Trade Secrets and Trade Kames L s Factors in Industrial Development-their Relative Functions,” Louis C Raegener (of the New York Bar), “Some Defects i n he Practice of our Patent System and Suggested Remedies,” B. C. Hesse, Ph.D., “Some Suggestions a s to Desirable Improvements,” L. H. Baekeland, Sc.D., “ T h e Inventor’s Standpoint.” All of these papers, with the exception of t h a t of Mr. Allen, who on account of illness was unable to prepare his manuscript for publication, will be published in these columns. The subject i s one of great importance and is of especial interest a t this time because of the reports which are coming to this country of
-4DDRESSES. the operation of the new English patent law, and also because of t h e fact t h a t the rules of practice of the U. S.Patent Office are a t the present time undergoing revision, T h e following notice appeared i n the December, 1908, issues of the OfFcial Gaze.% of the U. S.P a t e n t Office: I t is considered advisable to publish a revised edition of the Rules of Practice of t h e United States Patent Office, because of the changes which have been made in such rules since the publication of the last edition. I n view of this fact and i n order, if possible, t o simplify and improve the rules governing the practice before this Bureau, I desire t o obtain suggestions a s to amendment of the present rules and would be glad to hear from those interested upon the subject. I t is not proposed t o make radical amendments t o t h e present rules, b u t simply to embody such changes in or additions to the rules as will be beneficial both to the Office and t o applicants. A11 suggestions should be submitted prior to January I , 1909. EDWARDB. MOORE, ?;ov. 2 7 , 1908. Commissioner,
“PATENTS, TRADE SECRETS AND TRADE NAMES AS FACTORS IN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT-THEIR RELATIVE FUNCTIONS.” By W. HASTINGS SWENARTON.
The general conception of our laws relating t o patents, is t h a t of Statutes of Monopolies. At the present time when monopolies, not comparisons, are odious, even patents, which are often described as the only legal monopolies i n the United States, are fast regaining the once notorious reputation of true monopolies, which culminated i n the enactment of the famous English S t a t u t e of Monopolies. T h a t a patent is not a monopoly (and all t h a t can be said of patents applies equally well t o Trade Secrets and Trade Names), is readily appreciated when one considers the true monopoly a s recognized by the common law. According to Blackstone, a “monopoly” is defined a s “ a license of privilege, allowed by the King, for the sole buying and selling, making, working, or using of anything whatsoever, whereby the subject i n general is restrained from the liberty of manufacture or trading which he had before.” “ A patent,” on the contrary, t o quote from Robinson on Patents, “lays no burdens upon the people, except t h a t of remaining for a while without t h a t which they never yet enjoyed.” When one recalls the unexampled progress, directly attributable to the inventions of American citizens, which has been coincident with the growth and development of our patent system, even long prior t o this era of massive aggregations of capital, he is a poor patriot indeed if he does not thrill with pride and loseall thought of the idea of monopolies, a s he approaches in turn such epoch-making inventions as the steamboat of Fulton, Stephenson’s improvements in the steam engine, including the tubular boiler and the smokestack-exhaust, McCormick’s harvester, Bigelow’s carpet loom, the telegraph of Morse, the pneumatic process first invented by the American, Kelly, for manufacturing Bessemer steel, the Hoe press, the Otis elevator and the Howe sewing machine, the Westinghouse air-brake, the openhearth steel process of Thomas, a t last a substantial rival of Kelly’s Bessemer process, the Bell telephone, Edison’s incandescent lamp and t h e multitude of others of equal or greater importance.
I99
I n addition to the direct influence of the United States patent system, through its patents, upon the commercial expansion of the Cnited States, i t is interesting to consider a t this time t h e report of the Commissioner of Patents for the year 1848, particularly since the United States is now recognized universally a s the greatest agricultural country i n the world. This report which, a s is evident, was a report of the P a t e n t Office a s well as the annual agricultural report, there being no separate department of agriculture a t t h a t time, stated: “Much complaint has been made by inventors on account of a small portion of the Patent Fund employed each year for the agricultural report, and I have heretofore sympathized i n such complaint. Mature reflection, however, has convinced me t h a t no injustice is done to the interests of inventors, by such a n application of the Patent Fund, but, on the contrary, the interests of the Patent Office and of the inventors themselves have been subserved by it. “ T h e Agricultural report of the office, by its wide dissemination throughout the country, has contributed much to increase the reputation and influence of the Patent Office, and to spread more widely among the people a knowledge of the new inventions and improvements which have been made during the year. And thus i t promotes the interests of inventors, by contributing to the more rapid introduction and sale of their machines and improvements.” The United States Patent System comprehensively protects inventions which are disclosed, through its Letters Patent, a n d to a lesser degree, through its caveats, or what might be termed its letters de cachet, or sealed and undisclosed documents. Similarly its certificates of registration more adequately secure Trade Marks to their respective owners or proprietors. Trade Marks (herein considered as a species of trade names), a s well a s trade secrets, in addition to the protection afforded by the United States Patent System, have long been recognized under the common law a s property rights. While both trade secrets and trade marks are of ancient origin, the legal recognition and protection, under the common law, of trade marks, long preceded t h a t of trade 6ecrets. In fact i t is virtually b u t a century since the courts have extended their protecting arm t o cover the property rights known a s trade secrets. The trade mark is a development of the ancient shop sign. Even the Egyptians are known to have displayed inscriptions denoting their trade in conjunction with a n emblem to further indicate it. Also among the ancient Greeks signs mere employed to proclaim their calling. I n the ruins of Pompeii and Herculaneum discoveries are reported of representations of various kinds, let into the pilasters at the side of a n open shop, as, for example, a goat by a dairy; a mule driving a mill a t the baker’s, and a t the door of the schoolmaster’s, what has been termed, “ t h e not overtempting allurement t o knowledge,” comprising the representation of a boy receiving a good birching. These trade emblems were doubtless introduced into England a t the time of the Roman invasion, Originally, owing t o the limited number of traders, the signs were indicative of the trade, and were employed i n the same capacity a s we now use street numbers. Gradual’y, a s competition increased i n these particular trades, and the shops became designated by street numbers, the
