trammeled by m a r k e t restrictions, sueli cross-licensing can yield only good. A question arises as to whether such licensing should ever be compelled. Wisely handled to extend to t he public the full benefit of inventive activity b y adequate, production, proper pricing, and maintenance of a choice of sources, such a policy can quiet forever t h e clamor for compulsory licensing. Used, however, as a device to destroy free competition, crosslicensing can bring condemnation on itself, the paient system, and every institution that participates in it. The pace of technical development throughout the industrial world is quicken ing so perceptibly t h a t we nitty expect astonishing inventions in many fields, in ventions t h a t m a y threaten entire indus tries o r t h a t may barricade a whole art. Shall we now, before t h e facts Lire all be fore us, blindly say t h a t the patent system which has served us so well in the past must meet such situations unaltered and regardless of the economic consequences, or shall we face ouch new fact in the eco nomic world with the same readiness t o adapt it to our use as we face each newfact in the physical world? I n other words, shall we remain masters of all t h e institu tions man has devised for his own utility or shall we resign ourselves t o be mastered by them? At least we must remain a s ingenious a s our forefathers wen? when they framed t h e patent system a s a n exception to the pro hibition of monopolies. Is it difficult today to conceive of a single invention in t h e field of a t o m i c energy which, if patented, might s o dominate a n area of t h a t field that n u m e r ous improvements and vast activities could be forbidden by the patent owner? (I haven't read t h e morning papers, so I do not know whether we have been over taken by one o r not !) T h a t such a n i n vention may a p p e a r in our generation i s not improbable. In that event would w e be content to entrust to a single p a t e n t owner· so extensive a power. . . . for 1 7 years? Or could we compromise our history of devotion to the exclusive grant with t h e realities of a problem never fore seen and so arrange m a t t e r s t h a t t h e i n ventor might be assured adequate compen sation ami assured also that his exclusive right in some narrow field where the public interest is not completely uiulm* his con trol, would be protected, while the broad, basic, and dominating principle of h i s invention could be licensed to others s o that t he people will n^t be denied the bene fits of the invention? We must not hesitate t o explore these possibilities or we shall too soon encounter the prophecy by Robinson in 1890 (4-) : Continual concessions t o the patentee are as unjust, a n d ultimately as disastrous, as continual restrictions of his powers; for they constantly give rise to new grounds of litigation, and a r e sure t o pro duce» at some t i m e , a reaction in public
VOLUME
2 4, N O .
22·
sentiment under whose impulse the entiree system of exclusive privileges m a y dis *~ appear. There Is another aspect of patents littlee considered, and t h a t is the power of em bargo entrusted to t h e p a t e n t e e . Oneϋ author, considering the political aspectss of the patent in international t r a d e , hass said (3): The p a t e n t , through the license by which:-) t h e invention is p u t to work, has come to) be one of the most important of interna tional controls. ΛΥΘ all know to w h a t criticisms and oc casionally grievous complaints t h e un wise use of t h e patent as a n embargo has3 led in t h e past few years. Only if directorsà of research measure u p to Dr. Jewett's3 estimate of them as ^industrial states m e n " can they measure up t o the profoundl responsibilities which this function of the• patent system imposes. I turn now to more prosaic considera tions of the pat tint, those raised by its5 function as technical literature, to teach1 t h e method of employing the invention1 upon t h e termination of the patent grant, and to serve as a p a r t of the technical[ literature of the art d u r i n g the patent's» life. The problem is much broader than the; narrow phases of it arising with respect to> patents. I t embraces all t h e sciences andι all the technical literature. Have we exhausted the possibilities of universal systems of nomenclature? Or shall w e postpone the clay of agreement a n d meanwhile spend more effort in1 avoiding misunderstanding and over coming our self-imposed awkwardness; than would have been necessary initially t o establish a readily understandable com mon system of terms?
W h a t have we done to index the world of technical d a t a t h a t science creates each few months? Are we to spend most of our research time in overcoming the for mal complications of our bibliographical disorder or in the substantial work of solving the scientific problems to which our effort is primarily directed? Plow have we in the Patent OfUce served you? As one agency t h a t lives on the frontiers of science, are we adapting each new technique to your needs, or as some Janus-faced monster d o we operate with one face looking forward with you and the other turned enamored of the forms and technicalities of the retreating past? I have asked these questions, only a few of many more that rush upon anyone who thinks of the patent system and its relation to industrial research, and the public good, which both serve. I do not pause to answer them. T i m e will do that. And we, who have some small part in the enterprise, must take care that we see each fact clearly, and record t h e answers honestly, for the experiment m a y not be reproducible. Literature Cited (1) Bliven, Bruce, and Mezerik, A. G. t "What the Informed Citizen Needa to Know", p. 138, New York, Duell, Sloan and Pearce, Inc., 1945» (2) Douglas, P . H.» "The Trend of Eco nomies'*, p. 151, New York, F . S. Crofts and Co., 1930. (3) Hamilton, "Walton, Foreign Affaire, 23 f 582 (July 1945). (4) Robinson, W. C , "The Law of Patenta for Useful Invention", Vol. I, pp. 36-37, Boston, Little, Brown and Co., 1S90. (5) Standard Oil Development Co., " T h e Future of Industrial Research", pp. 22-23, 1945. (6) /&«*., p . 48.
Prominent Scientists Resign from the ICCASP Α Ν Γ Μ Β Ε Κ of leading mid western scien tists h a v e announced their resignations from the I n d e p e n d e n t Citizens' Com mittee of the Arts, Sciences, and Profes sions. Included among the group is T. R. Hogness of the University of Chicago who was a member of t h e I C C A S P policy making executive committee in N e w York City. Other University of Chicago facult3r members who resigned are H. I. Schlesinger, \V. O. Johnson, head of the depart ment of chemistry, and H. C. Urey, mem ber of the Institute for Nuclear Studies. Newspaper reports of Dr. Urey's letter of resignacion quote him as saying: "I in tentionally did n o t pay m y dues to the Independent Citizens Committee because I have not liked the approach of the com mittee to many important problems. "If t h e committee is t o be a n inde-
NOVEMBER
2 5, 1 9 4 6
pendent committee it should stand by it self and not submerge itself in the activi ties of other groups." U. G. Gustavson, chancellor of the University of Nebraska, who had played a prominent role in the organization of the scientific division of t h e midwest chapter of I C C A S P , also announced his resigna tion from t h a t group. Other well-known figures in the chemi cal world who expressed their dissatisfac tion with ICCASP by severing their con nection were the following: A. C. Ivy, executive vice president in charge of the professional schools of the University of Illinois, and E . D. Tilden and C. D. Farmer of Northwestern University. Added to the above list was t h e announcement by another prominent p u b lic figure, Harold Ickes, t h a t he had r e signed as executive chairman of I C C A S P .
30S9
