Antique Woodworking Tools 1897 : PatentsPrevious | Woodworking Tools Index | Next |
The following most excellent article on the subject of Patents is copied from
the American Machinist, issue of May 27th, 1897, and contains a great deal
that will be of interest to those contemplating the patenting of any article:
901
PATENTS.
of busimuch illegitimate wk is done
as in that of patents. Every few days we receive
pamphlets put out by solicitors; some of which
are no doubt legitimate in intent, and are published by upright and honorable
practitioners, in order to give information for which they are often asked
; and there is no doubt that the leading object of many of these publications
is to induce the
inexperienced to unwisely spend money on patents. It is so easy to take money
from an inventor for this work without doing anything which is technically
dishonest or dishonorable, that the industry of "working" the inventor
has come to be very actively prosecuted. It is hard to believe that some of
these publications are written with anything less than a deliberate attempt
to deceive, as when they lead one to believe that of the nearly half a million
patents issued to date, a large majority have been more or less profitable.
The leading purpose of these publications is generally to show that anybody
can patent almost anything (which, in point of fact, is true), and then to
follow that up with a glorification of the general subject of patents, with
statements of some of the great fortunes which have been made through patented
articles, leading to the inference that a
patent is the open door to fortune. The inference is
amounts made from usually enlarged upon by statements of the end comes usually
her statement that "delays are
dangerous," while at the conclusion is a statement of the fees
required. Some of these gentry go so far as to advertise a fixed sum for their
own fee and to add " No patent, no pay." Either of these statements
attached to one of these documents should be enough to warn an inventor against
it. It would be as reasonable to expect a physician to name before hand the
fee for curing his patient as to expect a patent solicitor to name his charge
for securing a patent. The value of a patent depends upon its claims. The conscientious
solicitor
always endeavors to make these as broad as possible, and where this is done
it very seldom happens that references are not cited against the application
by the Patent Office,
900
892
CONTRADICTS ITSELF.
We print here a (reduced) page taken from the manufacturer's catalogue, which
provides an example as to how some makers attempt to deceive.
It is barely possible that this maker is honest in putting forth the statement,
PATENTED BUZZ OR HAND PLANER.
The cut on opposite page represents our BUZZ
PLANER It is adapted to or HAND
as Planing out of a great variety of work, ,
Wind. Jointing. Beveling, Beading. Co rte,
tiering. Grooving, Tongue, Rabbeting, Moulding, Squat lag, Smoothing, etc
This machine is much heavier than other Jointers, and consequently runs quiet,
and does a very bide grade of worn
a of Steel, slotted on two sides for Moulding Cutters, etc., the tables rise
and fall u wedges or inclines and cannot be run into the cutters, on
instantly by means of hand wheels can guaranteed adl
that "This machine is much heavier than other Jointers". It may
be possible that he doesn't know any better, but in either case we may apply
the old
adage, "A fool is as dangerous
as a knave".
We know nearly all there is to know about the Jointers (Buzz Planers) made
by the principal concerns in this country, have full descriptive particulars
of those made by thirty nine different concerns, and in only two cases is the
weight of a 16 inch Jointer less than 1050 lbs., the average weight being over
1300 lbs.
In our judgment, the minimum weight for a 16 inch Jointer should be 1200 lbs.
We catalogue three styles, and the lightest weighs 142 lbs.
sometimes require the claims to be can- gard tO cheap Patent solicitors, their
but more often require changes, which in methods and work, and would just like
cases are largely verbal so far as their im- to say a few words in regard to
that nee goes. These amendments are in turn part of it which relates to delays.
rejected, and a long course of correspon and skilful work are involved in finall
yWhile it is true that, so far as the ring the allowance of claims to which
the instatutes are concerned, an inventor is or is justly entitled. The fixed
fee and "no nt, no fee" people, either draw such narrow "Allowed
two years of public use of his valueless claims at the start as to avoid any
invention prior to the date of his applierences, or in case they do not succeed
in en- cation", it is hardly right to say, as a ly avoiding references,
either cancel the claims rule, that advantage of these two years right, or
draw new ones still narrower and still
re certain to go through. of public use may be taken under all Regarding the
oft-repeated statement that de- circumstances " without in any way 's
are dangerous, there is probably no field of prejudicing his right ",
inasmuch as ork in which delays are less dangerous than in such a course might —and
not infre-
king out patents. Few things are justified in quently
d00S—put an inventor to eX-eing patented before they are tried. The United
pense and trouble to defend and secure
tales patent laws are the most liberal and favor- p
ble to the inventor of any in the world, and by his rights.
hem he is allowed two years of public use of his In the first place, a delay
of two years nvention prior to the date of his application with-
out in any way prejudicing his right. In an ordin- after the invention is in
public use beary case the inventor should show a drawing or a fore filing an
application for a patent, photograph of his invention, or the machine itself
gives large opportunity for other invento a few of his personal friends. The
drawing tors or applicants to file an application should be signed and dated
by these friends, or a
signed and dated statement that the machine was for substantially the same
invention, seen by them should be made. In case of any and tO obtain the issue
of a patent question priority ( "
Interference ") between therefor. True, the original and first him and
another inventor, this drawing or state- inventor is entitled under the laws
to ment will serve as proof to the patent examiner application and to secure
an infile his this, as the as date any to patent he is entitled. The re than
terference in the Patent Office with the ate filing of an application can do
no more thaatent is liable to be thrown into in- other party, a proceeding
instituted for
ter the Theere ly during for Site two at os ib life. the purpose of determining
the question
The only reason for haste that can possibly be
urged is the avoidance of interference, and this is of priority of invention,
applicant would, as j general for a accomplished just as well by the method
described or
as by filing an application. Meanwhile the in- rule, have the burden of proof,
and the ventor
with is he p ardor will robability, in have a most chance cases, to that cool
the downex, - expense of prosecuting an interference, with t
pense of an application will be saved. would ordinarily amount to a consider-able
sum in order that he might pro-In general the obtaining of a patent is only
a
very small beginning toward getting money out tect his right.
of an invention. Only those who have tried it Again—until the patent
is issued, of know the difficulty of enlisting the interest of course the inventor
is not in a position manufacturers
In putting toe things upon the to stop another party from manufactur
maket In general, inventors with out means
and without opportunities for enlisting the inhis invention.
terest of others, should be very slow indeed about Furthermore, a party having
an in
spending money on patents for inventions, no Vendors which he desires to sell,
or in
matter how promising they may be. which he desires to interest capital, is
With reference to the foregoing, we— not nearly in so good a position
to do so in the main —most heartily concur, and with an unpatented invention
as with a especially with what it has to say in re- patented one.
