Inventors and Inventions

Abstract

SIR JAMES SWINBURNE, in his presidential address delivered on October 25 to the Institute of Plastics, discussed the subject of invention. In his opinion, inventions are usually the work of men less than forty years of age and often are discovered by those without scientific training. He attributed this apparent anomaly to the likelihood of the technical man allowing his thought to be constrained in narrow grooves. The specialization of the modern world works against the interests of the home inventor. The day of the lone inventor has passed and progress is now usually the result of co-ordinated efforts of large research departments. Some of the greatest inventions have been, as a far-seeing judge once put it, what any fool might have done, but had not. Differentiating between the independent or outside inventor and the inside or technical man, Sir James believes that the latter is the former's chief enemy. When the independent worker approaches a commercial concern with an invention, he meets with opposition from the technical representative of the company, who is inspired by the human instinct of self-preservation, for the device submitted is something which the staff man feels that he himself ought to have thought of. A further distinction was drawn between the qualities necessary for an executive and those for a technical man. Sir James epigrammatically stated that the object of patent law is to help industry by encouraging progress, by checking progress at each step ; in other words, if there were no patent law and invention continued at its present rate, industry would progress faster ; on the other hand, if there were no rewards for invention, the incentive to invent would almost disappear. In his opinion, the cost of patents is too high, and the legal expense entailed in fighting an infringement favours the large company. The appeal system gives rise to anomalies. Thus, the first judge may decide against a patentee, the appeal judges may agree with him, and finally three out of five in the Lords of Appeal might uphold the patentee's claim. We then have the curious position of three judges overruling six.