INDUSTRIAL AND EXGIKEERING
342
of this being the only unsaturated acid present in rapeseed oil that is solid a t 25” C. This was therefore used for the following tests. The results are compared with those reported by Holde and with those obtained on a purchased sample of erucic acid. Iodine value Acid number Molecular weight Melting point, O C.
DISTILLED ACID 75.35 166.2 337.6 31-32
HOLDE’S ACID 75.05 166.0 33s 33-34
PL-RCH.ASED ACID 55.3 190.0 295.2 37-3s
The molecular weight values for the distilled acid and the purchased acid were computed from the acid values. The purchased sample (obtained from a London supply house) was evidently of inferior grade. The melting point was obtained both by the capillary method and by Shukoff’s method (6), both giving closely agreeing results, but lower than Holde’s. The iodine number (Hanus) agrees both with Holde’s value (75.05) and with that of TBufel and Bauschinger (74.9). It is evident that erucic acid of high purity can be obtained easily and in large quantity from the fatty acids of rapeseed
CHEMISTRY
Vol. 25, No. 3
oil by fractional distillation a t low pressure. Further work on the preparation of pure erucic acid and its properties is now in progress.
LITERATURE CITED (1) Busse, W.F., IND. ESG. C H E Y . , 24, 140 (1932). ( 2 ) Caldwell, B. P., and Price, R. B., Ibid., 23, 1463 (1931). (3) C o f f e y , J., J . Chem. Soc., 121, 17 (1922). (4) Marks, S.,and Morrell, R. S., Analyst, 54, 503-8 (1929). ( 5 ) Rideal, E. K., and Taylor, h-.S . , “Catalysis in Theory and Practice,” p. 153, Macmillan, 1926. (6) Shukoff, Chem.-Ztg., Xr. 95 (1901). (7) Stute, G. F. A., Xelson, H. A , and Hchniute, F. C . , IND. ENG. CHEM., 17, 1138 (1925). ( 8 ) Sudborough, J. J., Watson, H. E . , and Ayyar, P.R . . J . Indian
Inst. Sci., 9A, 2 5 (1925). (9) T i u f e l , K., and Bauschinger, C., Z . angew. Chem., 41, 157 (1928). RECEIVED August 29, 1932. Presented before the Division of Paint and Varnish Chemistry a t the 84th Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Denver, Colo., August 22 to 26, 1932. This paper is constructed from a portion of a thesia by G. H. Dye, presented to the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of bachelor of science in chemistry, 1932. G. H. Dye’s present address is Vacuum Oil Company, Bayonne, N. J.
What Is Wrong with Our Patent System? WILLIAMA. HAMOR,Mellon Institute of Industrial Research, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa.
W
HAT is wrong with our patent system, is a question that has been frequently and expertly discussed. The need for reform in court procedure has been emphasized by many writers; remedies that are claimed to be indicated in the Patent Office have been presented by others. Litigation of all kinds is expensive because the cost of legal procedure is high. Litigation also causes delays. Patent disputes, which are numerous because the United States is a country of patentees, make this fact especially evident. These disputes arise constantly, normally, and usually not through intentional wrong-doing. Participants in patent actions in courts are chiefly handicapped by their inability to retain, or by the unavailability of, teams of counsel and experts who are able to cope with the teams of their opponents. Court trial is conceded to bring the most conclusive result where the costs are within the means; but there are relatively few rich companies and there are many people of no or modest resources who are exploiting inventions. Most of these disputes are so minor in nature that they should be settled by another agency. Where justified, as illustrated in a number of instances, merger of disputants has been successful and has avoided costly litigation. These persons and companies have kept their business going and have conserved their time and money. It is believed that patent disputes that are not big enough to be worth court attention should be settled by arbitration, before, say, a referee, with one speaker on each side for small cases, and an attorney on each side calling witnesses in more important cases. Some patent attorneys regard as their function the obtaining of a patent, irrespective of whether the latter is to be valid or not. Then, too, patent attorneys are occasionally skilful recognizers and users of verbal differences between various patent claims. There are so many patent applications and so small a staff in the Patent Office (in view of the work) that, owing to such practices, the applicant for a patent for an “old invention” is not made aware of this fact a t once, but only after several months. This condition, of course, would be improved by the pro-
vision of a larger staff in the Patent Office. According to certain specialists, perhaps an easier solution could be found in the compulsory presentation of a single claim defining the broad invention to be covered by the specification. A preliminary search would be made on this claim without any further action than the communication of the result to the applicant. I n this connection, the author shares the belief that every patent should be workable. An occasional complaint is that some patent attorneys, probably not many, slow up the patenting process by p r e paring hastily and lengthily written specifications that increase the burden of the Patent Office. This rapid procedure seems to be followed to get the broadest possible reaction of the examiners, without sympathetic regard for the latters’ time. Scientific property is indeed a controversial topic. It is plain that the difficulties of discussing this subject come partly from the absence of a definition and partly from the fact that it appears impossible to draft a plan for rewarding discoverers that will meet with the acceptance of the discoverer, the industrialist, the inventor, and the lawyer. As is well known, there are nevertheless surprisingly few cases in which applications for patents for meritorious inventions have been wrongfully refused favorable action in the Patent Office. Every one interested in the Patent Office was pleased to read in the recently published annual report of Commissioner of Patents Robertson that the number of patent applications disposed of during the last fiscal year was the highest in the history of the office. Applications that received final disposition amounted to 100,960, which was 7553 over the previous record figure established in 1931. This reduction in the number of applications awaiting official action has resulted in greatly reducing the time applicants must wait for action, Two years ago, in sixty-three examining divisions, only three were under six months in acting on applications, but a t present all divisions are under six months. RECEIVED December 16, 1932. Presented before the meeting of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Washington, D. C., December 6 to 9, 1932.
