reaction. Generally speaking, such allusions are made out of personal
motives; but he should very much like to see a real live reactionist, who
would like to repeal what progress has brought us. There may possibly be
people extant who would wish to do so, but as for him, he is not aware
of any reactionary plots against our institutions, or the effects of
science and progress; yet this very project now before the House, which
_he_ considers to be _reaction_, has been most favourably received in
Committee. Should the Netherlands Legislature sanction it, _then_ he
shall have to believe in the existence of reaction. For it is an easy
thing to find evidence of reaction in the project under discussion.
M. van Zinnicq Bergmann has already more or less demonstrated it. He
(M. Heemskerk) will add a few more particulars. Where, the hon. member
asks, lies the origin of Patents? In the cultivation of a free spirit,
and the ennobling of labour; and of these, the right of protection
existed since time immemorial. Deviating from the civil rights, the
Stuarts, through favour or arbitrary motives, granted “privileges;” but
the Free Parliaments saved Patents, that protect inventions. Moreover,
this principle has been adopted in the most freedom-advocating of
constitutions—viz., that of the United States. The same may be said
with regard to France. On the 31st December, 1790, the “Assemblée
Constituante” resolved that the right [of property] in inventions should
be guaranteed, and in this resolution originated the first French
Patent-Law. The Netherlands would be the very first country on earth
(with one exception only) to deviate from the principle of a right of
property in inventions, in a moment, when public opinion, dissenting
thereby from a few economists, everywhere declares in favour of Patents.
He reminds the House of the immense influence inventions have had on
history and society, such as the invention of printing, of the compass,
steam, gas, &c. And would it be fair to withhold from those who promote
progress that protection which is legally due to them; whereas there
is no end of provisions in the code protecting mere material property,
such as the right of inheritance until the twelfth degree, lotteries,
stock gambling, and the like? Government has evidently been aware of
the circumstances standing in the way of the project, as is proved by
page 1 of the Memorial of Explanation; but it shrinks from the logical
consequences. The Patent system is based upon the principle that nobody
should enrich himself by another man’s property. This has also lately
been argued at length in Savornel Lohman’s pamphlet. The hon. member
gives it as his opinion that in this matter an author is in exactly
the same position as an inventor. If Patents be abolished, we shall
logically have to come to repealing Copyright as well. A counterfeited
edition is nothing else than the imitation of an object of industry;
the writer is an author, but the inventor is no less an author. Amongst
others, he refers to a speech from Lamartine (as reporter of a Committee
in the French Legislative Chambers, which consisted of the then most
eminent economists) on the Patent-Law of 1844, which is still in force.
He insists that the justice of his system of maintaining the right
of property is proved beyond a doubt by the ever and again recurring
circumstance of an inventor lacking capital for a practical application
of his lucubrations. Still, he often obtains the requisite means; and
now everybody will be enabled to imitate the result of his thoughts and
labour, and to reap the profits to accrue from the same. He points to
Professor Visvering’s work on practical economy, who also recognised
that, if no exclusive Patents be delivered, still inventors had a
right to a remuneration of some kind. Those who oppose the Patent-Law
contend that an inventor is not entitled to a reward; he admits that
no reward should be expected, but most assuredly the inventor may lay
claim to remuneration for the labour expended on the invention. We are
referred to Switzerland, where no Patents are given. But what of that?
In the first place, most of the industrial Cantons of Switzerland are
clamorous for a Patent-Law; secondly, the Swiss, as a body, equally want
the measure to be put through; and, in the third place, the hon. member
points to the large benefits which, according to Klosterman’s recent
work, Swiss industrials derive from foreign Patent-Laws. It is alleged
that the number of Patents which are being delivered [in Holland] is but
small. But, says M. Heemskerk, foreigners, on the contrary, claim that
the number is large. There exists apprehension of law-suits; but can
that be brought to bear upon the repeal of the Patent-Law? In that case,
landed property would be the least tolerable, as the proverb says—“_Qui
terre a, guerre a._” Moreover, no three law-suits are known to have
sprung up from Patents in this country since the law has been in force.
In Belgium, it is true, much action has of late been taken in order to
do away with Patents; but there, as well as in Prussia, the movement
is rapidly decreasing. The hon. member refers to the “Nederlandsche
Industrieel,” a periodical which, though strenuously in favour of
abolition of Patents, nevertheless mentions in its issues of 14th and
21st of February, and 20th of June, what has lately occurred in this
respect in Germany and elsewhere. In Great Britain also the question has
lately been discussed in Parliament, but the member who moved it did
not even take the votes upon it, but quietly dropped the matter; such
was the impression made upon his mind by the arguments brought forward
[!]. The subject has equally engrossed the attention of the “Société
Economique” of Paris, when eminent economists, amongst whom Wolowski,
declared in favour of Patents. This is mentioned in the _Economistes_ of
June [see page 164]. For all these reasons the hon. member recommends
to the serious consideration of the House that, for the time being at
least, the rash Act be not consummated. Do not throw such a stain upon
your Legislature, he emphatically exclaims. Do not step backward; beware
of relinquishing the protection of any description of property. Do not
cripple the law by ignoring a principle which protects the fruit of human
intellect. Beware of laying violent hands upon property, of whatever kind
it may be. Let us do better than that; let us reject the bill. Persuade
Government, there being no haste whatever, to propose to the Chambers
that the subject be deferred until next Session. At all events, nothing
would be lost by it. Meanwhile Government would be enabled to reconsider
the subject, and to make inquiries abroad as to the state of legislation
on this head. No prejudice would be occasioned by deferring the matter;
for the hon. member expresses his firm belief that a dangerous measure
is about to be adopted with regard to a subject with which the utmost
caution should be observed.
M. DE BRUYN KOPS would not enter into all particulars, the matter having
been treated at length in the sundry documents relating to it; but he
would restrict himself to a refutation of M. Heemskerk’s arguments.
He is in a position to place himself on a very simple point of view.
The law of 1817 is generally disliked, in principle as well as in its
details. It has been admitted that it does not give the inventor any
guarantee, and this on the ground of the issue of some law-suits which
have sprung up from it. So Patents, far from giving a security, hinder
the general public and impede industry. It is a fact worthy of notice,
that the leading industrial organs, such as the Chambers of Commerce and
Factories, the Industrial Society, the Union for Promoting Mechanical
and Manual Industry, and the Nederlandsche Industrieel, unanimously have
declared against Patents; so have a score of industrials. Are these not
facts worth more than a few considerations about a right to special
protection? Add to this the circumstance that in those countries where
Patents do exist difficulties are gradually increasing; as, first of
all, the question arises, whether the invention is really a new one;
and to ascertain this is very often a most arduous task. Then, again,
Patents are being asked for mere trifles. Within a short period, 126
Patents for improving bicycles have been taken out in England. It thus
becomes necessary to make a minute inquiry into the usefulness of the
matter. This has been the cause that in France they have gone to the
other extreme—granting Patents “without guarantee by Government.”
Patents are not consequent upon the recognition of man’s, or inventors’,
rights; they are the remainders of the guild system, and of protection
to national industry in exclusion of foreign. It cannot be a question
of right of property, for, if such were the case, Patents would not be
granted for a fixed term of years. If invention means right of property,
why, then, that arbitrary restriction? Originally the idea may have
been a good one, but in the sequel it has proved a failure. There are
examples of different persons having made the same invention without
having any knowledge of each other. It is consequently becoming almost a
matter of impossibility to ascertain priority. The hon. member says that
all endeavours to bring about a practical result out of an originally
elevated idea have utterly failed; that the guarantee of the right is,
as has been proved by means of the report in England, at best uncertain
and unsatisfactory; and that when the project shall have been made law,
he will rejoice at his country having been foremost in leaving the wrong
track.
SESSION OF TUESDAY, 22ND JUNE.
The President reads an address from the Board of Directors of the Union
to Promote Mechanical and Manual Industry, of Rotterdam, in which they
support the project now pending before the House.
The discussion on the subject is continued.
M. VAN HOUTEN observes, that M. Heemskerk has given the epithets of
“reactionary” and “ruinous” to the measure proposed by Government. By
opposing the project, that deputy did _his_ duty, but at the same time
it more than ever becomes the duty of those who strenuously support it
openly to express their convictions, and to show that they know what
they are about. His opinion is that M. Heemskerk’s arguments have been
tested, and did not stand the test. M. de Bruyn Kops having refrained
from arguing on the ground of theoretical considerations, he (M. Van
Houten) will say a few words in that direction. The main question is
this: Is prohibiting the imitation of an invention lawful, and shall it
or shall it not be upheld? Those who want to let things remain as they
are talk of rights acquired; but on what are these so-called rights
based? Certainly on no very solid basis; for, if a right it be, why is
only a temporary protection granted? A right is permanent, and cannot
be taken away but through expropriation for the common weal, and even
then in consideration of an indemnity only. M. Heemskerk argues two
points: 1st, The inventor has a claim of priority, as the first who
takes possession. 2nd, The imitator enriches himself at the expense of
the inventor. But, says the hon. member, M. Heemskerk loses sight of the
fact that first occupation can only take place of “corporeal” effects;
not of an invention which may be made, and is often being made, by others
at the same time. Besides, he contends that it is not the imitators, but
the public, who enrich themselves and benefit by the invention. He is
of opinion that the Patent system remunerates where no labour has been
expended; whilst claiming Patents has become an industry prejudicial
to the general public. It has been urged to frame a “good” Patent-Law;
but that the hon. member holds to be impossible. Whatever might be its
provisions, monopoly must needs be created by it. And if this is such an
easy matter, why did M. Heemskerk not introduce a bill for a new law? It
is alleged that if everybody is allowed to imitate, the inventor works
for nothing. But how is it with so many gratuitous appointments? Is
that a question of right? Certainly not. As M. Heemskerk, in his speech,
invoked Providence, he should like to know whether it can be supposed
that Providence intends enriching an individual or society at large? On
that ground, we may safely set the public’s right against the inventor’s.
Hereupon the hon. member considers the question from an economical point
of view. In the first place, Patents are useless for such objects as
baffle imitation—like the Krupp guns, for instance; and then objects
emanating from the inventor direct are, as a rule, preferred. As for
petty inventions, he would say that, it being the normal course of social
development that every branch of industry should steadily progress, so
it is the case with them. On that field, everybody is more or less of
an inventor; and with regard to petty inventions, Patents not only are
superfluous, but noxious. M. Heemskerk, it is true, has rather spoken
with a view to great inventions, and the hon. member fancies he has
given evident proof that no harm can be done by abolishing Patent-right
on the latter. It is these great inventions that the public at large
benefits by. He denies M. Heemskerk’s assertion, that in the absence of
Patents no capital would be forthcoming for the practical application
of an invention, for, pending the tests and experiments an inventor
subjects his invention to, no capitalist loans him money. He equally
contests what M. H. said about the logic of repealing Copyright, should
the Patent-Law be put aside, and that, by doing the latter, violent
hands would to a certain extent be laid upon the right of property. The
hon. member thinks that no such comparison can be drawn, as the law
providing for Copyright does by no means prevent anybody from applying
any published work to further development of science. Copyright in no
way interferes with public interests. The member for Gorcum has called
the project a “reactionary” measure. This will frighten neither him nor
us, for it matters little what is _called_ reactionary, but much what
_is_ reactionary. The project is closely connected with the historical
development of society, and the liberation of labour and industry. The
Patent system may be placed upon an equal footing with the exclusive
right to discoveries and other similar privileges of yore. We have given
up all those things. Each and every benefit derived from them becomes
a public one, and so ought every new outlet for trade to be. On these
grounds, the hon. member advocates the removal of those impediments.