Patents 0152

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: 

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

TedsWoodworking Plans and Projects

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.