July ,r I 9 1 9
T H E JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL A N D ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
Moved: That the appointment of a liaison officer from this Division to act with the Chemical Division be referred to the Executive Committee with power. Adopted. Moved; That the Division does not concur in the method proposed by the Division of Chemistry for making a research survey. Adopted. Moved: That the Division on Educational Relations be requested to cooperate with the Executive Committee of this Division and that of Chemistry and Chemical Technology in formulating proper plans whereby a research survey might be made and report back to the Division. Adopted. SCIENTIFIC SECTION AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION Durmg the annual convention of the A. Ph. A. to be held in New York the week beginning August 25, 1919,the Scientific Section will hold meetings on Thursday and Friday, August 28 and 29. Those desiring to read papers before this section
697
should submit them to the Secretary, Dr. A. G. Du Mez, Hygienic Laboratory, U. S. P. H. S., Washington, D. C., not later than August IO, 1~919.
CALENDAR OF MEETINGS Society of Chemical Industry-Annual Meeting, London, July 15 to 18, 1919. American Chemical Society-Fifty-eighth (Annual) Meeting, Philadelphia, Pa., September 2 to 6, 1919. American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical EngineersChicago, Ill., September 22 to 26, 1919. National Exposition of Chemical Industries (Fifth)-Coliseum, Chicago, Ill., September 22 to 27, 1919. American Electrochemical Society-Fall Meeting, Chicago, Ill., September 23 to 25, 1919.
.I
NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE SHALL WE HAVE ANNUAL PATENT RENEWAL FEES?
Editor of the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: Our patent system is founded on the constitutional provision that “The Congress shall have power * * * * to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. * * * * * ” Note the “promote the progress.” It seems to me only fair to assume, therefore, that Congress is not to grant these exclusive rights if by so doing “progress of science and useful arts” is avoidably or needlessly obstructed or impeded. I n the following a partial remedy is suggested for the cure of such cases where there is avoidable obstruction or impediment to such progress through the grant of such exclusive rights. Fundamentally, our patent system is the most generous and liberal patent system in the world and more patents have been taken out in this country than anywhere else. Nevertheless, I think this very generosity and liberality has in some substantial respects seriously disadvantaged us. I believe that can be cured without diminishing the generosity and liberality of the system as a whole. Because I was then personally satisfactorily convinced that many of our patents avoidably and needlessly obstructed progress, 1 stated in a paper read before the New York Section of the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY,ten years ago, on January 8, 1909 (see Electrochemical and Metallurgical Industry, Feb. 1909, p. 78), “that an inventor who allows his patent to lie idle transgresses the spirit underlying the patent system. He is reserving to himself a field of endeavor which he has agreed to exploit and is not exploiting and by his reservation he prevents its exploitation by others and thus retards progress. “A partial remedy for this might be a low annual tax, say $15 01 $25 or some other sum, not high enough to stand in the way of any inventions giving any reasonable promise of remuneration, yet high enough to make it appear unprofitable to retain reservation in fields which they are either unwilling, unable, or incompetent to develop.” Revenue was and is only an incidental result of that suggestion; its sole purpose is to correct that abuse and the income is wholly secondary and for my purposes entirely beside the point. The discussion that followed will long be a most vivid recollection for me. Everybody (so it seemed) jumped on me and so hard that I thought I hadn’t a friend in the room. Among the things that convinced me then that I was right in the above suggestion was the large number of forfeitures for
J
non-payment of renewal fees or taxes regularly published in England and in Germany and also that about three-fourths of a long string of British patents cited as anticipatory references in the recent patent litigation had turned out to be so “valuable” that their owners (and among them Henry Deacon) had forfeited them rather than pay $25 for the fifth year of the monopoly grant.. The reasons advanced by those who ten years ago opposed this suggestion were, on the one hand, that the poor inventor would be discriminated against and invention by him discouraged, and on the other hand, rich corporations would not be deterred by any such fees. It must be remembered that the United States is the only major country that does not have an annual fee system; that in and of itself does not by any means make the tax system right. But there is an obvious discrimination against United States inventors through the absence of such a fee system in this country because, when a German inventor forfeits his German patent, he thereby throws that field open to development and exploitation by Germans in Germany but because he does not also and a t the same time relinquish his corresponding rights in the United States we are barred by our own laws and by our own acts from enjoying a liberty of action and a freedom of motion that the Germans enjoy. A dead German patent, therefore, still lives and rules in the United States. Supposing we had had in force the following fee system modeled after that of England, Germany, and other European countries: First year, to and including the seventh year, no fee 8th y e a r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10 13th y e a r . . ............. 9th year.. $20 14thyear 10th year.. $30 15th year.. 1 l t h year.. $40 16th y e a r . . 12th year.. 17th y e a r . . ?k4,, $550
............... ............... ............... ...............
$ 60
...............$ 7 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 80 ............. $ 90 ............. $100
How many of the 1200 Bayer patents recently sold by our Alien Property Custodian would have been in force a t the time of sale? To keep them alive for their full statutory term would have cost $660,000, or an average of $66,000 per.year. I t is unreasonable to assume that there are no “dead horses” among 1200 patents and no one wants to pay for a “dead horse” although no one, in such a case, would mind having him so long as he costs nothing. I n order to present an idea of how the German tax system operates in Germany on German patents in Class 12:chemical processes and apparatus; Class 2 2 ; dyes, varnishes, lacquers, paints and adhesives; and Class 23: oils and fats collectively, consider the following table constructed for me from official German documents :
T H E J O U R N A L OF I N D U S T R I A L A N D ENGINEERING C H E M I S T R Y
698
Total No. of Patents Granted during Each Year from 1900 t o 1914 in These Classes 1914. 852 1913 870 1912 863 1911.. . . . . . . . . 656 1910.. ........ 702 1909.. . . . . . . . . 567 1908.. 620 1907 621 1906.. ........ 542 1905. ......... 545 1904.. . . . . . . . . 420 1903 . . . . . . . . . . 518 1902.. L . . . . . . . 685 1901.. 627 1900. 417
Total No. of Patents Still in Force on March 1 , 1915 in These Classes 852 81 1 684 504 35 1 286 253 237 233 124 80 85 80 37 1
-
......... .......... ..........
........ ..........
........ ......... -
Percentage of Patents Still in Force on March 1 . 1915 100% (1st yr.) 93% (2nd yr.)
50% (6th yr.
-
TOTAL.. . . . . 9505
. .
-
4619 49 % Life of grant of German patent, 14 years. Average effective life of German patent less than 7 years.
Invention and “the progress of science and useful arts” may very well have been impeded rather than promoted thereby in Germany; and that, even though the exact contrary has been very strenuously maintained in this country and in the very recent past for the German patent system by some who, by no stretch of imagination, could be termed, that present-day rara avis, “Germany’s friend.” To get a t material capable of answering that question would call for determination of ownership of each of the 9505 German patents in the preceding table and that would be a long, tedious, and expensive job. I n order to get a complete picture the same operations should be gone through for Austria, England, France, Italy, Japan, Switzerland, and any other relevant countries. Then we might have material for an answer to the question so far as the chemical and allied industries are concerned. Then the whole job would have to be gone over again for the other industries. Rather a tall order! For seven of the leading chemical countries the following table of renewal fees has been compiled from Fairweather’s “Foreign and Colonial Patents” published in 1910. In this the Austrian crown, the French andSwiss francs, and the Italian lire have been taken a t 2 0 cents each, the German mark a t 2j cents, the English pound a t $j, and the Japanese yen a t 50 cents. Austria England
..
..
10 11 12 13 14 15
-
16 20 24 32 40 48 56 72 88 104 120 136
$778
.. 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
-
..-
$475
France
$ 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Germany
$”ii:so
20
20
25.00 37.50 50.00 62.50 75.00 87.50 100.00 112.50 125.00 137.50 150.00 162.50 175.00
~
_
$280
$1312.50
_
Italy
Japan Switzerland
....
”8
-
13 13 13 18 18 18 23 23 23 28 28 28
$270
.... 8
-
b
’$
5.00 5.00 7.50 7.50 7.50 10.00 10.00 10.00 12.50 12.50 12.50
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
$105.00
$266
5:OO
Vol.
11,
No, y
or any small group of men can reasonably hope to tackle them conclusively. I am of the opinion that such a tax system would effectively remove much of the grip which foreign-and especially German-inventors have on our domestic industry and would also relieve use of the congestion due to patents to our own citizens which are not exploited, or serve no useful purpose, and to some extent, at any rate, of that class of domestic patentees designated, more or less unjustly perhaps, as patent sharks, trailers, or pirates. I n other words, the dead wood would be cleared out. Therefore, I express the hope that our members will seriously look into this matter from all angles and particularly those that affect themselves, by conference with counsel, executive, operating, financial and sales officers, if need be; in order that this may grow into a tangible result I suggest that at the Philadelphia meeting next September our Industrial Division devote a part of its program to a constructive, systematic discussion and exploration of this subject to the end that our Committee on Patents may be in a position intelligently to deal with the question and for the greatest benefit to the greatest number. Here is surely a case where in a multitude of counsel lies wisdom. There is little likelihood that any legislation creating such a tax system (if that is to be done) could be of much effect until after the eighth year of its existence because it would not apply to issued patents or to the pending pat& applications; such legislation could only affect applications filed when and after it became effective. BERNHARD C. HESSE 25 BROADSTREET N E W YORKCITY,N. Y. June 4, 1919
..........
Editor of the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: Upon reading Dr. Hesse’s communication, I am convinced that a discussion on the patent question a t the September meeting of the SOCIETYwould be both profitable and timely. A symposium is therefore being arranged for that meeting when the Pharmaceutical Division and the newly formed Dye Division will unite with the Division of Industrial Chemists and Chemical Engineers, i t being thought that the members of these three divisions will be particularly interested in this matter. This symposium will be under the direction of the Patent and Related Legislation Committee with Mr. Edwin J. Prindle as presiding officer. Having the active cooperation of these three Divisions, every phase of the subject should be considered and some definite conclusions reached. I t is hoped, therefore, that papers may be prepared covering the various points of view, and that the members of the SOCIETYwill come with the anticipation of actively participating in the discussion. HARLAN S. MINER Chairman, Division of Industrial Chemists and Chemical Engineers
The above suggestion of a total fee of $550 may appear high and reduction to one-half or to $275 by starting from a $5 fee and an increase of $5 may seem desirable. GLOUCESTER Crm. N J. Men for whose sound judgment I have\very willingly great June 13, 1919 respect tell me that for the United States to adopt a fee system like the one above outlined would stifle invention and impede SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES OF THE progress. Men for whose sound judgment I am bound to have GOVERNMENT ORGANIZE equal respect tell me the exact opposite1 Which group is right? I am free to confess I am more than ever convinced On Thursday, May 8, I g I g, the scientificand technical employees that the second group is. of the Government met in a mass meeting a t the New National To be sure, the Committee on Patent and Related Legislation, Museum, pursuant to a call sent out by a committee representaof the AMERICAN CHEMICAC SOCIETY, of which I happen to be a tive of governmental activities. The question of an organizamember, might go ahead and examine the question thoroughly. tion of scientific and technical workers which has been widely But, as above shown, that is a colossal job if it is to be well discussed during the last year was brought acutely to the fore done and will run into money quite handsomely. This is, by the work of the Joint Congressional Reclassification Comtherefore, a question on which the membership should express mission, as the Commission wishes to deal with the employees itself because there are so many angles to it that no one man only through an organization and not as individuals. The
