Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 53:209 (Jan 1896)
Article: Monopoly By Patents
Author: Z. Swift Holbrook

BSac 53:209 (Jan 1896) p. 151

Monopoly By Patents

Z. Swift Holbrook

In the excellent work by Professor John Bascom, of Williams College, on “Social Theory,” just published by Crowell and Company, the subject of patents receives a brief treatment of two and one-half pages. Professor Bascom has not assumed to treat the subject exhaustively. He makes only two points: (1) patent laws allow unreasonable profits, which go not to the inventor, but to the capitalist or entrepreneur; and (2) that injustice is caused by delay in issuing patents. The second point, without doubt, is wisely urged, but it is of small importance comparatively. Professor Bascom assumes that inventors, as a rule, are defrauded of their rights by receiving an unjust proportion of profits, made upon the manufacture or sale of devices under their patents, because, in some instances, inventions prove valuable and enrich, not the inventor, but others. It is an inference not at all warranted from the premises, and even more remote from the facts in the world of invention.

It is undoubtedly true of many of the most successful inventions that enormous profits accrue to others than to the inventors; but these are exceptions to the general rule, for the great majority of patents are not worth the final fee, and, but for the hope of gain, stimulated by the more successful ones, would never be taken out of the Patent Office. The instances often cited, where inventors have been defrauded— such as the Colt revolver or the McCormick reaper—do not bear investigation. Such public reports oftentimes have their

BSac 53:209 (Jan 1896) p. 152

origin in envy or prejudice or in the vainglorying of the inventor. It certainly has not been true of Howe, Pullman, Edison, Bell, McKay, and hosts of others, that the inventor is not properly rewarded. Professor Bascom says: “Patent laws are now at fault in allowing them to accrue to the benefit of those who have appropriated, not rendered the service rewarded by them. It is said that the gimlet-pointed screw has been worth to the manufacturer $10,000,000” (p. 415).

Now the question is not, What have the inventors of certain successful devices received for their inventions? but, Do inventors on the whole, and as a rule, receive a fair reward for their services? It is generally assumed that they do not. If such were the case, however, to attempt to remedy it by law would be a most chimerical undertaking, not to say a clear invasion of the right of private contract, on the part of the State that assumes to guarantee and protect that very right. It would be an attempt on the part of the State to make good bargains for inventors who are poor business men, and would involve an interference with private rights that no class of men would resent more s...