The motion picture projectionist (Nov 1931-Jan 1933)

32 Motion Picture Projectionist November, 1931 a matter of fact, be quite extensive; and hence the Examiner was forced to allow the claims without objection. Such an action is often detrimental to the inventor's best interests, which are better served by having some, at least, of the original claims worded so broadly as — to use an attorney's expression — "to bring out the art." This prior art is later of great . use in determining the exact validity and scope of the claims finally issued in the patent. It fixes the particular part of the inventive field to which the inventor is entitled in his patent, and also makes clear what part is old or belongs to others. Moreover, like everything else in the world, the big prizes come from the expenditure of the gratest effort; and broad claims written into the case originally, then rejected by the Examiner, and later allowed in whole or in part after a contest with the attorney, are, in a sense, semi-adjudicated, and their validity and scope thus better maintained in case of future contest in court. Another mistaken idea of many inventors is that the granting of a patent gives something of value in itself. But, of course, while there is a certain advertising and restraining value, as previously explained, the chief value of any patent is in the breadth of its claims. If these are only one or two in number, and comparatively long and specific in wording, as by being directed to a lot of unnecessary details, the issue of the patent may only serve to teach the invention to the inventor's competitors, and without payment of tribute to the inventor for his rights, since they are so easily avoided. Patent Office Integrity Another common mistaken idea, especially among poor inventors, is that there are "leaks" in the Patent Office, and the poor or uninfluential inventor may have his idea stolen from him. But there is absolutely no cause for worry on this point. The Commissioners, in active charge of the Patent Office from its founding, have all been men of the highest integrity; and a finer and more trustworthy group of men and women than the Corps of Examiners it would be impossible to find. In truth, it can be safely said that the loss of a patent right through either the Patent Office or through the larger and more professional group of patent attorneys, is practically impossible. There is still another common myth that ought to be exploded, and that is that a patent once obtained, is only an excuse for a law suit, and that the rich corporation can infringe it with impunity unless the inventor can raise a large sum of money to prosecute a suit. However, many an inventor with a patent infringed by a large concern has succeeded in bringing suit, by employing an at torney on a contingent-fee basis, never putting up a cent himself, and eventually coming out of the litigation with a fortune. In fact, this is a quite common occurrence, and suggests this bit of advice: If you have reason to believe that your patent is being infringed by anyone, immediately report to your attorney, who will usually arrange to have your rights respected, and on some basis profitable to you. Some attorneys, of course, do not practice in this way, but you can often find one who is enough of a friend and humanitarian, and not too busy to help you. Analysis of Real Protection Although none but an expert in patent matters can sense the scope and probable validity of a patent, there is a simple way for everyone to get a remarkably reliable idea of how good an average patent is. Hence this chapter, which should be of great value not only to inventors, but to manufacturers and investors who are interested in the purchase of patents, and hence need a reliable gauge of their probable value. The method of analysis is a new one, conceived by the author, and published here for the first time. It is the result of an analytical study of many hundreds of patents. It may be stated briefly as follows: 1. This method is based upon the Law of Averages, which is found to work here with reasonably complete accuracy and dependability when not less than six or eight patents are being considered. For a lesser number, this method of analyzing their real protective value, although always a valuable index, is less reliable, it being then merely presumptive rather than conclusive. 2. The shorter the claims are, the broader they are, as an average condition, this being previously explained in another chapter. For purposes of convenience, the average number of printed lines in each of the three shortest claims in each of the patents under investigation, is first noted. The average of these averages is then found for all the patents by dividing their total by the total number of patents. If this average is 7 or 8 printed lines, or less, it usually indicates reasonably good breadth in the scope of the important claims of those patents; but if this average is several printed lines in excess of that, or more, it suggests the presence either of unnecessary limitations in the claims or else of claims drawn to very specific combinations of inventions which are mostly old and so protectable by patent only in a very specific and therefore valueless way. 3. The sum of the total number of claims in every patent, divided by the number of patents considered, gives the average number of claims per patent of all the patents. This average, for the average patent among the thousand or so issued each week throughout the year, is about 7 claims per patent. Now, if the average for the patents being analyzed is less than 7, it usually suggests only partial protection of little value. But if the number is considerably more than 7, it is an index that many patentable combinations of the invention have been covered in the claims, and some real surrounding protection therefore obtained. This, coupled with an index of broad short claims, as previously explained, presumes a patent of much more than average value. It is a simple matter for an inventor to use this method of analysis when first employing at attorney, by analyzing that attorney's previous work in taking out patents; also in checking up the patents being obtained for him by his present attorney to determine not only how novel his inventions really are, but also how skillful his attorney's work appears to be. This method is, too, of great value to corporations in determining how their own attorney's work compares with that of their competitors. Finally, it is frequently of use to investors of patent rights as a good index on patent value during the preliminary negotiations, and before going to the expense of getting their attorney's studied opinion prior to contracting for the purchase of license of such patent rights. (To be continued) E. E. Shumaker Resigns as President of RCA Victor Mr. David Sarnoff, president of the Radio Corporation of America, has announced the resignation of Edward E. Shumaker as president of its subsidiary, the RCA Victor Company. The resignation was accepted by the RCA Victor Company board to become effective as of January 1, 1932. ; ■ Mr. Sarnoff stated that it had been Mr. Shumaker's desire to retire from active business when the Victor Talking Machine Company, of which he was president, was purchased by the Radio Corporation of America. At Mr. Sarnoff's request, however, Mr. Shumaker had agreed to accept the presidency of the new RCA Victor Company which was formed in 1929 as a result of the merger and to serve in that capacity until the problems incident to unification had been solved and the reorganization completed,, which has now been done. Mr. Shumaker's resignation brings to an end twenty-eight years of service in the home entertainment industry, he having joined the Victor Talking Machine Company in February, 1904. In retiring from the industry in which he has spent his entire business life, Mr. Shumaker predicts even greater accomplishments for its fu