The Relationship Between Patent Attorneys and Inventors And How Things Have Not Changed in Over 100 Years

by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com)

Left: Google Books Electronic Version/ Right: Facsimile of Original Title Page

In the over 100 years since this book was put to print, very little has changed from the issues mentioned by the author, except for the inflation of the fees mentioned.  In actuality, little has changed in the 182 years since freshman Senator John Ruggles' scathing assessment of the US patent system and the need for the Patent Act of 1836, the basis for today's US patent system.

Whether we are talking about: inventors representing themselves, inventors mistrust of patent attorneys, unethical and disbarred patent attorneys and brokers, how patent attorneys and inventors should work together, whether to select a local or Washington, D.C. based patent attorney, worthless patents, none of these have gone away.

It's not that Edelman was able to see the future; it was that hardly anything has changed, despite all the years in which things could have changed and despite several revisions of the US patent laws and regulations.

From Philip E. Edelman, Inventions and Patents (available for free download) pp. 18-24 (1915):

Facsimile of Original Introduction to Chapter III

 CHAPTER III - PATENT ATTORNEYS

The Need of an Attorney. 

As was pointed out in the preface, it is not the intention of this book to make the inventor his own attorney. There is a saying which attorneys like to quote at times which runs something like this,

"He who tries to be his own lawyer has a fool for counsel." It might be better to say that one unfamiliar with patent procedure who tries to be his own lawyer has an unwise man for counsel. No one can refute the fact that an inventor who is also familiar with patent procedure and skillful in presenting an application has a distinct advantage over other inventors who must depend entirely upon an attorney, and that he may present his own case better in many cases than an attorney.

Of course the chief object of an inventor should be to invent and he is likely to be too busy inventing to take the time and trouble to present his own case. However, a knowledge of patent matters cannot help being an aid to a successful inventor.

In the first place, an inventor who understands patent matters can present his case to an attorney much better than one who does not. He is better able to point out the novelty and merits of his case, and to suggest strong claims in many cases. Then too, he is able to understand the references "dug-up" in a preliminary search, to realize the strength or weaknesses in the claims which he is allowed, to decide whether a claim will be of value, to take the proper precautions to establish priority, and many other items.

To be sure, there is the case of the so-called poor-inventor. To him it seems that lack of funds will force him to present his own case. Of course, there is the alternative of assigning the whole or a large part of the invention to some financial supporter, but there are many who are reluctant to do so. The path of the poor inventor is indeed a hard one. Even if the difficulties are surmounted and the patent is obtained, the difficulties generally begin all over again when he attempts to sell or market the invention. Of course, this is not intended to discourage any inventor and even then it is doubtful if he could be discouraged.

It is not difficult to trace the progress of an application which is presented by an inexperienced person.

The mistakes in matters of form, the delays, the prolixity in the claims, the inability to appreciate the significance of certain references and non-application of others, the inability to tell the necessary and omit the unnecessary portions, all these and others are common occurrences and causes of failure. Of course, a simple case is less likely to fail than a complex one. Imagine how an inventor would get along in a divisional case, or in interference proceedings without counsel!

From the foregoing some readers might be led to conclude that the attorneys had somehow influenced the paragraphs in their favor. The viewpoint is unprejudiced and merely shows the task which is taken when an unskilled person attempts to present his own case. Of course it does not follow that he must fail in the attempt.

He may even make a big success. In the rules of practice the Patent Office itself recommends that an attorney be employed, and goes on to say, "as the value of patents depends largely upon the skillful preparation of the specification and claims."

How true this last statement is! Under the present method, of Patent Procedure, the value of a patent does not depend upon the merits or novelty of an invention as much as it does upon the skillful preparation of the specification and claims and the prosecution of the application. This may appear unfair but it is nevertheless true. The reason will appear later when the construction of the specification and claims is discussed.

Selecting an Attorney. 

It is of importance to the inventor that he should have a competent attorney to present his case. In view of the foregoing paragraphs and remembering that there are some sixty thousand applications more or less filed each year it is little wonder that these patent attorneys should form a numerous and apparently prosperous class in themselves.

How, then, is an inventor to select an attorney?

Should he select a local or a Washington attorney?

These and other questions must be answered by the individual. The Patent Office does not, of course, recommend any particular attorneys. A register of attorneys, however, is published and may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents for twenty cents. In this register the names of all persons who are entitled to represent applicants are kept. It is not necessary that a person be an attorney-at-law in order to be registered. It may be remarked that while this register is intended to be a guide to inventors, it is an open secret among attorneys that there are a few names on the record which ought not to be there. This is an unfortunate circumstance and should be remedied. While it is not the intention of these paragraphs to " knock," it is felt that the reader should be warned against certain " Bargain-advertising Concerns," who make alluring offers. Indeed some of these concerns have advertisements and literature which are especially alluring. "Patent obtained or your money returned, bargain rates, vague assurances, etc.," are the more common offers that are made. While these concerns undoubtedly obtain a number of valuable patents, the methods which are often employed are unprofessional to say the least. Who can commend concerns which offer so much a head for names of inventors who become their clients? Certain concerns advertise that they make "Free Searches," and offer guarantees of patentability. There is no doubt that some inventors are benefited by such an arrangement, but there are a goodly number, on the other hand, who are misled into spending considerable time and money. An inventor who writes to one of those concerns is quite likely to receive some such reply as this:

 "We find that there are several patents similar to yours but since many of our clients are often able to make certain changes and thus obtain a patent we will forward copies of these patents to you upon the receipt of $. You are of course aware that up to the present time we have acted for you without compensation."

There seems to be a tendency on the part of some inventors to distrust patent attorneys, as a result of the few who have caused the trouble. Indeed it appears that at times the situation has been almost as serious as the cases of the pension attorneys some years ago. The author recalls the time when the names of certain attorneys were carried in the Gazette as a warning against their unreliability.

Attorneys who were disbarred from practice before the Patent Office under one name often resumed practice under an other name and so on. At the present time it is not definitely known that any serious fraud exists in respect, though certain cases are certainly open to suspicion.

In justice to the great number of reliable attorneys it may be said that they work honestly and conscientiously for their clients and do everything possible to protect the interests of the inventors whom they represent. Of course, there is the other extreme, namely, those few attorneys who charge what seems to be almost extortionate fees, but in this respect, every man has a right to set his own value upon his services.

The government takes considerable care to protect the inventors from incompetent attorneys, but of course some continue to nourish in spite of all. As an example of this an amendment to paragraph 22 of the rules of practice is quoted below:

(d) The Secretary of the Interior may, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, suspend or exclude from further practice before the Patent Office any person, firm, corporation, or association shown to be incompetent, disreputable, or who refuses to comply with the rules and regulations thereof, or who shall, with intent to defraud, in any manner deceive, mislead, or threaten any claimant or prospective claimant, by word, circular, letter, or by advertisement, or by guaranteeing therein the successful prosecution of any application for patent or the procurement of any patent, or which word, circular, letter, or advertisement shall contain therein any false promise or misleading representation."

Relation of the Attorney to the Inventor.

The inventor or the assignee of the whole interest upon conveying the power of attorney to an attorney practically gives the whole care of the case to him. The attorney then conducts all of the correspondence with the Patent Office generally to the exclusion of the inventor and information concerning the progress of the case must come to the inventor second hand.

There is, then, every need for trust and confidence in the attorney. When the attorney can be interviewed personally this is much easier than when correspondence alone must be relied upon. Of course, the inventor may revoke the powers of attorney at any time if need be.

He is thus doubly protected.

Whenever possible, it is generally advisable to employ the services of an attorney who is particularly skilled in caring for cases of the particular class to which the invention may belong. In fact, attorneys who also have mechanical ability are the better fitted to care for many cases.

The Value of the Attorney. 

In general the need of an attorney has already been pointed out. It is a well known fact that there are some attorneys who are not of high efficiency in caring for their clients' applications, not because of any dishonesty, but because of the general inability to give the case proper care and treatment. In fact, some of the cases which reach the abandonment stage in the hands of certain attorneys are good proof of the foregoing statement.

Generally speaking, a case should be completed within a short time, but of course the indiscriminate canceling of claims and similar methods are not commendable.

Certain attorneys make a practice of so-called "rushwork" and care for a great number of cases in a given time by this method. The crowding of work cannot but result in some careless work, although the experience of the attorney may be such that both rapidity and accuracy are possible.

As has been pointed out, the government takes considerable precaution to protect the inventor from disreputable persons. It does not, however, require any bond from attorneys at the present time and since the chances of prosecution are somewhat remote there are still some attorneys of this class who continue to nourish.

It is hoped that the standard of all Patent Attorneys will soon be put upon the plane of the higher class and above reproach or suspicion.

The Duty of the Attorney.

In accepting a case the attorney takes considerable responsibility and it is his duty to attend to it in confidence and trust. The inventor should be fully informed of the probable commercial value of the invention, of the present state of the art and the significance of prior patents in the same class, and the probability of obtaining a patent of real worth. When this is done, the waste of money and time in obtaining patents of little or no use will be minimized.

It is a well-known fact that a considerable number of worthless patents are instigated and encouraged by certain attorneys who have no further interest than the resulting fees. The inventor is often made to believe that his invention will be of impossible value and is blinded to the commercial aspect of his invention.

It often happens that the inventor is led into believing that the patent which is obtained is a sure protection for his entire machine, when in reality it merely covers some nonessential details. In this connection the concerns who advertise that they obtain patents or return fees are particularly active. To attorneys it is comparatively easy to obtain a claim or two on some detail feature of an invention, even if it is otherwise anticipated by references of record. In fact, in many cases the inventor is advised to make minor changes in order to facilitate the obtainance [sic] of such patents. It is through these and similar methods that the patent office is padded with superfluous patents. The only profits which accrue in such cases are those which the attorney obtains as fees.

The confidence and trust in an attorney is of the utmost importance and should be fully reciprocated. No one should confide in any of the scheme attorneys. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between reliable and unreliable attorneys. Some of those who make great promises show long lists of printed references, make the greatest offers of free services, warn the inventor against fraudulent concerns, make apparently ironclad contracts, and resort to similar plans, are the ones who are to be avoided. They can generally be discovered by evidences of bad faith, such as direct contradictions in their literature and circulars, condemnation of the very practices which they themselves employ, misleading statements, and other earmarks.

***

Filing Applications For Absolutely Unpatenable Inventions??

by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com)

Prior to filing a patent application, a patent search is sometimes (but by no means most of the times) commissioned by the inventor. These searches can uncover prior art references that evince potential unpatentability of the invention. The strength of the argument for unpatentability will vary with the quality of the references and often weed out some inventors from filing a patent application. 

However, while many inventors will decide not to continue; sometimes, the client may either not be of the opinion that the invention is at all unpatentable or want to file the application anyway. An inventor may want to file anyway, so they can mark their product "patent pending" to scare away potential competitors. Inventors may know, or be advised by their patent attorney, that between the non-provisional application sitting at the USPTO for a year or so waiting to be examined and then the prosecution dragged out for as long as the client is willing to fund it; this will indeed scare away some potential market entrants. Furthermore, as long as the client decides not to foreign file, non-publication can be requested. The public will have no clue as to the client's intentions. Filing as a provisional first, provides yet another year of patent pending without public disclosure of what is actually pending.

Is it ethical for a patent attorney to carry out this strategy for the inventor?

Under the current USPTO ethical code and 37 C.F.R. 11.18(b)(2), the answer would depend on whether such strategy would be for carrying out an "improper purpose" or to "cause unnecessary delay" and how aggressive (or conservative) the inventor's patent attorney is.

In 1897, well before enactment of the current (or actually any extensive) USPTO ethical code, and probably still strong guidance for the modern patent professional, was In re John Wedderburn and John Wedderburn & Co., 81 O. G., 159, Decisions Of The Commissioner Of Patents, p. 140 (1897), affirmed United States, ex rel. Wedderburn, v. Bliss, Secretary of the Interior, 81 O. G., 1783 (DC Supreme Court 1897), Decisions Of The Commissioner Of Patents. Wedderburn, is one of the earliest Patent Office disbarment decisions. While John Wedderburn and his company's actions spanned all manners of extreme wrongdoings, one of those company actions involved knowingly filing patent applications for unpatentable inventions. 

Although this aspect of the disbarment decision -again, I cannot emphasize enough at the moment Wedderburn's wide range of wrongdoings and evil practices- strongly relied upon client deception by Wedderburn, when justifying disbarment, the decision does provide general guidance for patent practioners on filing patent applications with the USPTO for inventions that have strong or absolute evidence of unpatentability.

Benjamin Butterworth, then-Commissioner of Patents (1896-98; his death), was no mere naive political appointee or patronage appointment; he knew about the: Patent Office, the patent system, patent policy and risks to the public, whether the risks were to society in general or patent applicants. After all, he was a former chairman of the U.S. House of Representative's Committee on Patents (1889-91). Butterworth, in his decision, wrote (p. 750) (emphasis added):

It is perhaps an open question whether an attorney may properly prepare and file an application for a patent for an invention which he believes to be unpatentable.

If the ground of his belief is such as amounts to an absolute certainty—as, for instance, in the Whitman case, in which the reference, patent to Cheney, No. 116,553, found by the respondents' search and reported to the applicant in the usual so-called "unfavorable report" letter, shows absolutely every feature of Whitman's invention—the attorney, in filing such an application, is false not only to his client, but is false in his duty toward this Office. That the attorney has a duty toward this Office as well as toward his client cannot be questioned. He is to assist the Patent Office in doing justice toward his client and justice toward the public. He cannot be a party to an attempt to secure a patent for what he knows to be old, an attempt to take from the public what has become public property, any more than he can permit the Office to refuse to his client the protection to which that client is under the law entitled.

There may be circumstances under which an attorney, even though he may believe—such belief not amounting to an absolute certainty—an invention to be unpatentable, may properly file an application for patent therefor, but this should never be done without the express direction of the client, given after it has been stated to him that the invention is believed to be unpatentable, and the reasons why it is believed unpatentable have been fully and clearly laid before him by the attorney. To deceive the client as to facts which negative patent ability, or by failure to clearly and definitely state the facts to allow the client to deceive himself as to such facts, does not show that "highest good faith". which is recognized by the respondents as "necessary and required" between attorney and client. It is nothing less than gross misconduct. 

*** 

A biography of Wedderburn can be found here. Some extracts of highlights of the biography are:

• Of his early life and education, little is known other than by some means he obtained a license to practice law.
• Obviously a very canny lawyer and one looking “to make a fast buck,” he established the John Wedderburn Company with the apparent intent of using the Patent Office as his personal cash drawer.  By virtue of conning newspapers all across the country into running his ads at discount prices in exchange for “stock” in John Wedderburn & Co., he was able to tout his services, ... to a nationwide audience.
•  After collecting ... additional $20 to process the patent application, which in the vast majority of cases he never obtained, if the client seemed to be “a vein easily mined,” Wedderburn sent a letter informing the inventor as follows:  “We take pleasure in informing you that the Board of Awards has selected your invention for special merit and our name will appear on our Roll of Honor for last month for the Wedderburn prize.”   <Of course, there was no such award/prize/Board.

The Non-Existent Wedderburn Prize

• After disbarment, Wedderburn was 33 years old and out of work. "Despite being disbarred and disgraced", Wedderburn, decided to enter the DC liquor business, setting up John Wedderburn’s Pure Wines & Liquors at his old F Street address. By 1915, political connections may be the reason that in Wedderburn’s ability to practice patent law was restored.

 ***
 

John Prince-Smith (1863)-a Voice Promoting the Abolition of Patents

by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com)

"John Prince-Smith was convinced that patents, 'in so far as they are to secure rewards to inventors, are the worst and most deceptive form of reward, causing more often losses than profits even to the inventors.'"

Cited in, The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century, by: Fritz Machlup and Edith Penrose, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 10, No. 1 (May, 1950), pp. 1-29.

John Prince-Smith (London, 20 January 1809 – Berlin, 3 February 1874) was an English-born, German free trade liberal and politician (wikipedia.com). The 1850's-1875 were the peak times for strong patent abolition movements on the European continent. Reform of the patent system was not proposed; outright abolition was.

Machlup/Penrose went as far as saying, "for a few years it looked as if the abolitionist movement was going to be victorious." However, "the whole story was later forgotten and now seems to be unknown even to experts in this field is probably due to the absence of any modern historical accounts of the debates that were carried on in the nineteenth century."

John Prince-Smith

New Dog Barking Rules in Parts of Orange County, CA: Part II (Intro.to Complaint Procedures)

by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com) 

In a prior post, I started describing the brand-spanking new Orange County barking laws that went into effect in October, 2017.

In this post, using information from OC Animal Care, (OCAC) I will describe the complaint process created by the new laws. 

This complaint process should not exactly make you think the county or city is going to do anything about your neighbor's "incessantly" barking dog.

Indeed, the complaint process places such burdens on the complainant, it will take me two blog posts to drag you through it. 

***

Complaint Procedure

www.cuteness.com

 The Barking Dog complaint process generally comprises multiple steps:

1. Who Could Receive a Citation?
2. Initial Complaint
3. Second Complaint
4. Citation Issuance
5. Civil Citation Administrative Hearing
6. Optional: Education or Mediation Appointments

Initial and second complaints? Don't we want to avoid the need for second complaints?

***

 
1. WHO COULD RECEIVE A CITATION UNDER THE NEW LAW?

Citations can be issued to any "responsible person". This means more than just the owner.

Under the new law, a "responsible person" is defined as any one of the following:

1. A person who allows a barking dog or animal nuisance violation to exist, whether through willful action, failure to act, or failure to exercise proper control over a barking dog or animal nuisance.

2. A person whose agent, employee, or independent contractor allows a barking dog or animal nuisance violation to exist, whether through willful action, failure to act, or failure to exercise proper control over a barking dog.

3. A person who is the owner of, and a person who is a lessee or sub-lessee with the current right of possession of, real property in or upon which a barking dog or nuisance animal violation occurs.  

4. ...a minor at least 14 years of age may be a Responsible Person subject to the provisions of this subarticle.

Wow, this looks as if it covers all those neglectful landlords, rental agents, dog sitters, kennel owners, and kids with lemonade stands. Maybe this law is pretty good, it will get those lazy landlords and kids to finally stop my neighbor's dog's barking! And I don't have to worry about complaining about the actions of the 14 year old; the minor's parents or legal guardian shall be liable for and held responsible for payment of their minor child's citation fines and/or late penalties. Anyway, I don't want to bankrupt the 14 year old; I just want the county to do something about that barking dog.

Let me grab my paper and pad and write out my complaint. How the heck do I do it?

2. THE BARKING DOG COMPLAINT PROCESS

An outline of the Barking Dog or Animal Nuisance complaint process is listed below.

A. INITIAL COMPLAINT

The complainant must first initiate a complaint in writing, under penalty of perjury, by submitting a completed Barking Dog Complaint Form to Orange County Animal Care ("OCAC").  Be advised, OCAC does not provide identifying information of the complainant at the first step in the process.

Once the initial complaint has been processed, an Animal Control Public Education Officer (PEO) will attempt to contact the owner or responsible person to explain the Barking Dog or Animal Nuisance complaint process and to help resolve the situation. 

"Public Education Officer?" - Does not exactly sound like someone with a muzzle and a cage is on their way.

If the owner or responsible person is not available, a courtesy notice with an attached informational packet will be left at the residence. 

The notice will give the owner or responsible person ten (10) days to resolve the situation.

OCAC makes the responsible party feel good though, saying:

The COURTESY NOTICE is NOT a citation and is only meant to advise the responsible person of the complaint and of the ten (10) day period allowed to resolve the issue. 

But, realizing there are complainants reading the website, OCAC throws them a bone, saying:

Many complaints received are resolved after the delivery of the courtesy notice and do not escalate to the issuance of a citation.

However, "many" is not "all", nor "mos"t, nor 10%...Many just means, well, I don't know what it means.

There are no fines associated with the courtesy notice. 

B. SECOND COMPLAINT

What happens when your neglectful dog owning neighbor isn't scared into shutting up their dog after reading the "courtesy notice" and not having to pay any fines?

If the barking still occurs after the ten (10) day period allowed for the responsible party to correct the issue, a second complaint may be submitted to OCAC by the complainant. 

It is at this point, the complainant is the one inconvenienced: 

OCAC will schedule an affidavit appointment to meet with the complainant.

If OCAC is not contacted within thirty (30) days following the ten (10) day resolution period, the complaint will expire.

In other words, the complainant must keep pushing this forward. Otherwise the "responsible party" has to do nothing.

But, if the complainant is pissed or motivated enough (or, does not have to go to work) to go through the hassle of filing a second complaint within the thirty (30) days, they are given the honor of being "required" to complete an affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, attesting to the observed violation during the affidavit appointment in order to further their complaint to the issuance of a citation. Who is the person doing wrong?

We are then reminded again by the procedure that OCAC does not investigate or make a determination that a Barking Dog or Animal Nuisance violation has occurred.

Citations are issued after the receipt of a second complaint and are based on the sworn affidavit signed by a complainant. 

Finally! That dog is out of here? Nope!!!

3. CITATION ISSUANCE

Once a signed affidavit is received by OCAC, a citation may be issued. 

The first three (3) citations issued for a Barking Dog complaint are civil citations. After three (3) successful civil citations within a two (2) year period, the fourth citation issued may be a criminal citation. 

Wait a second...why the heck is that "responsible party" being allowed to be irresponsible, for 2 years? That dog is a yapping machine. Little has changed for the better...

But, at least its a citation. Things are done!

Nope, not even...

Unless the responsible person elects to roll over and pay the fine associated with the citation, the citation will be scheduled for an informal administrative hearing so that a Hearing Officer can make a decision on the outcome of the citation. The complainant is required to attend this administrative hearing. If they do not, the civil citation may be dismissed by the Hearing Officer. The responsible person is also required to attend the administrative hearing if they chose to contest the civil citation.

You mean I need to take more time off to get this dog shut up? Yep, sucka.

More than that dude. Remember, since OCAC does not investigate or make a determination that a Barking Dog violation has occurred, it is the responsibility of both parties to bring evidence or testimony to the administrative hearing. In order to be considered, copies of evidence or digital media must be submitted at the hearing. Yep, you, the complainant, need to figure out how to take that video of your neighbor's barking dog off of your phone and onto a CD-ROM.

If I finally manage to convince the Hearing Officer I am right, does that mean this yapping dog is out of there? Nope, but you knew that already.

If the civil citation is upheld, the responsible person will have 30 days to pay the civil citation fine. The same fine they had no real motivation to pay earlier.

Criminal citations issued after the fourth citation are issued for a violation of OCCO 4-1-48 (misdemeanor violation) and submitted to the OC Superior Court for processing and disposition. You can imagine the importance with which the local prosecutor is going to give this matter.

This article is for informational purposes and does not contain legal advice.
 

On Why Some Leave the Patent Office (Part II)

by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com)

As indicating conditions of work and salary outside the Office compared with Office positions, some excerpts from letters returned with the questionnaires sent out are here printed, each quotation being from a different author:

 "I left the former position because the pay was inadequate to support me properly, inconsistent with the dignity and responsibility of the work and unworthy of my training and education."

 "More encouragement to effort; more direct and proportion ate return from service."

"Patent Office salaries are too low and advancement and increase in salary too slow in comparison with the same line of work outside."

"I consider the need for higher salaries in the Patent Office to be imperative. My sole reason for leaving was to secure increased compensation."

"Stenographers in my office without even High School education are now getting more than Assistant Examiners in the Patent Office who are technically trained and college graduates."

"I left the Patent Office because the opportunity to advance in salary was very limited and further the pay was very moderate considering the character of training and the character of work required of patent examiners."

"Having been in the Patent Office almost eight years, I realize its needs keenly. It should have a modern building with additional room, a substantial increase of the examining corps, and higher salaries. If Congress could be made to understand the enormous waste and expense due to the delay in acting upon applications and the granting of invalid patents, I believe that it would be more liberal in its treatment of the Patent Office."

"As to the increase in salaries, a yearly increase in the salary of each Examiner, say for ten years, should be made if his services are satisfactory, or conditional on the passing of examination, so that he would not have to wait on death or resignation for promotion. The object should be to prevent
resignations from the Patent Office by making the salaries more nearly equal to the salaries paid for similar work on the outside. A new man is not of much value and the entrance salary might be retained at its present figure, but should be yearly increased up to the maximum."

"There should be additional examining divisions created and the force of principal examiners and assistants increased. The pay of the examiners and executives in the Patent Office should be increased at least thirty per cent; this is particularly true of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners whose functions and responsibilities are in many respects somewhat analogous to those of a Federal judge, and I know of no reason why the Commissioner should not receive at least the same salary as a Federal judge and the Assistant Commissioners should receive nearly as much. As regards my reason for leaving the Department. I left It on account of inadequate compensation, as I can make, in the practice of my profession, many times any amount that I would have ever been paid had I stayed in the Department."

"The writer would say that his only reasons for leaving the Patent Office were the matter of salary and the unsatisfactory working conditions then in force in the Patent Office. As to the first—the writer had reached a point where but one further promotion was at all probable, which promotion would have meant an increase of three-hundred dollars a year. As the writer was assured in leaving the Office of receiving a much greater increase than this immediately, with the substantial certainty of further increases in accordance with his value to the company which made the offer, he did not feel that the Patent Office offered sufficient inducement for him to devote the remainder of his life in such work. The writer does not believe that any business concern having any regard for its reputation among its customers and patrons, would think for a moment that when its production increased greatly from year to year that its original force of operatives should keep up the production, regardless of the quality of work produced, and it would seem that the Patent Office, which is a public servant and the services of which are paid for by the Inventor, should have as much regard for its reputation, so far as the quality of its work is concerned, as any private enterprise, and should increase its force in accordance with its output."

Journal of Patent Office Society, V. II, No. 3, pp, 129-34 (1919).