Chapter XLII: Section 18: relates to the duration of copyright. Gentlemen, that is a

topic to which I have given great consideration, and I can do no more than state my opinion. I should like to elaborate it, but what I would recommend the committee to adopt on that subject is this very short provision: That the copyrights secured by this act shall endure for a hundred years in the case of an original book or dramatic or musical composition (one hundred years, Mr. Herbert, I liberally advocate in your behalf) and for fifty years in every other case.

I am totally opposed to any law providing for the extension of any copyright or any patent. The public ought to know, when the copyright comes out and when the patent comes out, exactly when it is going to expire; and it ought not to be made contingent upon anything so uncertain as human life. On the other hand, there is every reason in favor of giving the copyrighter a very long period of monopoly. Seventeen years is long enough for the patentee. I am a patentee myself. I would be very glad indeed to have Congress extend some of my patents, but I have not the effrontery to ask Congress to do it, because I do not deserve it.

Mr. CURRIER. Do you think a hundred years is a limited time within the meaning of the Constitution?

Mr. WALKER. Oh, yes; certainly. A thousand would be. [Laughter.] And I wish to make this suggestion: It was suggested to me that the word "limited" meant definitely limited, and that therefore Congress would not be conforming to the Constitution if it made the period dependent upon any uncertain contingency. Now there is some force in that.

Mr. SULZER. I agree with you, Mr. Walker, upon making the number of years definite; whether you make the years few or many, make them definite. Now, right there, without any intention to be facetious, do you not think that fifty years is sufficient?

Mr. WALKER. No; and I will tell you why. Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote "Uncle Tom's Cabin" in 1853. She got a copyright on it for twenty-eight years, then an extension of fourteen years, and at the end of that time, in 1895, the copyright expired. Harriet Beecher Stowe then was dead--died in 1896--but she left two maiden daughters; and it would be a comfort to me, and it would be a comfort to all those who honor the memory of Harriet Beecher Stowe, if those two ladies could now be in the receipt of some royalty from "Uncle Tom's Cabin," which they can not be.

Mr. SULZER. Is there any government that grants a patent or copyright for more than fifty years that you know of?

Mr. WALKER. Not that I know of. Fifty years would be altogether excessive for any patent. The longest period that could possibly be vindicated by argument for a patent would be twenty years.

Mr. BONYNGE. How about copyright?

Mr. WALKER. I wish I could argue the matter; but I hold that all original works ought to be copyrighted for a hundred years, and all derivative works, such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, for fifty.

Mr. BONYNGE. What is the longest period granted by any government, that you recall, for a copyright?

Mr. WALKER. I can not speak as to that with certainty.

Mr. SULZER. Fifty years?

Mr. WALKER. The nations are numerous.

Now, I must come to another point, section 23, in respect of the damages that may be recovered. Section 23 begins as follows:

That if any person shall infringe the copyright in any work
protected under the copyright laws of the United States by doing or
causing to be done, without the consent of the copyright proprietor
first obtained in writing, any act the exclusive right to do or
authorize which is by such laws reserved to such proprietor, etc.

The trouble with that is that it makes the man who does the thing an absolute infringer unless he can show a consent in writing; and that repels the whole doctrine of implied licenses and equitable estoppel, which two doctrines are found to be absolutely indispensable to the administration of justice in patent cases, and heretofore in copyright cases. The idea that there can be no answer to an infringement suit for a copyright except a written license is new in this statute. It has never been in any copyright law before, and it would work havoc with justice, because it would enable the wilfully malicious copyrighters to mislead men into unwitting infringement, and then pounce on them with an infringement suit, and then, when they set up equitable estoppel or an implied license, say, "Equitable estoppel and implied license do not go in this statute. You must show a written license." Words can not express how badly that would work.

Again, in subdivision B, this man is--

to pay to the copyright proprietor such damages as the copyright
proprietor may have suffered due to the infringement, as well as
all the profits which the infringer may have made from such
infringement.

That is wrong, because it gives him two recoveries; and in patent cases the courts have established for more than a quarter of a century that the patentee is entitled to a recovery of profits or damages, whichever he prefers, but is not entitled to recover both. No proposition has ever been made, in any statute, to give anybody a double recovery until it is made here; and here he is told that he shall have both. And what is worse, down at the bottom there of the subsection, if it turns out that there were no damages inflicted and no profits made, then the provision is that the judge shall fix the damages at such a sum as he finds to be just; and then, after the judge is told to exercise his discretion to fix a just sum, he is told that that sum must not be less than $250.

On page 18, among the evils and misfortunes that are to be inflicted upon the unwitting infringer as well as the willful infringer, is the following. He must--

deliver up on oath, to be impounded during the pendency of action,
upon such terms and conditions as the court may prescribe, all
goods alleged to infringe a copyright.

So that if anybody wants to drive his competitor out of business, all he has to do is to file a bill alleging that the competing goods infringe, and he does not even have to swear to that; and then, in pursuance of that bill, all the property of that alleged infringer is impounded during the course of the litigation. And it would be a very dull complainant that could not keep the litigation going at least five years, and to that extent eliminate competition.

The next one is wickeder still. The infringer must--

deliver up on oath for destruction all the infringing copies or
devices, etc.

Here is a case of an unwitting infringer. He is found to infringe. He thought he did not infringe. Good lawyers told him he did not. The court finally found that he did, and there, among the penalties, all his goods must be delivered up for destruction. Now, that is entirely wrong. The courts have decided in patent cases that under precisely those circumstances the defendant has a right to export his goods and sell them in foreign countries; and there is no ethical and no legal reason why an unwitting infringer of a copyright, after having been found to infringe in this country, should not export his goods and sell them elsewhere. And the circuit court of appeals for the second circuit has unanimously decided, in patent cases, that that is perfectly right.

Mr. WEBB. Not only the copyrighted goods, but the machines themselves.

Mr. WALKER. I will come to the other point--certainly; and he must not only have those destroyed, but the "plates, molds, matrices, or other means of making such infringing copies."

My client, the Automusic Perforating Company, has a plant that cost $50,000. That mechanism is adapted to perforating rolls, and if they should use that mechanism in perforating 500 rolls with perfect right, and then inadvertently use that mechanism in perforating one roll that was held to infringe, under this bill their whole plant would be cleared out of their place and would be destroyed.

Gentlemen, that is so surprising a proposition that I presume it may be of interest to know the origin of it. The patent laws of England provide that, at the discretion of the court, infringing material may be destroyed. That is because the Parliament of England is not subject to any constitutional limitations, and can pass any kind of a law that it pleases. Mr. Justice Gray knew more about the laws of England than he did about the laws of America; and at one time, one of the two times when he was deciding a patent case while he was on the bench, he ran across an English decision in which it was held that the infringing goods might be destroyed. And then, by way of obiter dictum, without having the slightest occasion to do so, he wrote into the decision an obiter dictum to the effect that that was the law of this country. But the judges of the circuit courts know better, and never have enforced that obiter dictum. And if they were to enforce it they would violate two or three provisions of the Constitution, among others that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law.

But the authors of this provision, taking the hint from that obiter dictum of Justice Gray, have not only applied it to the same matter that Judge Gray applied it to, namely, the infringing thing itself, but to the entire plant of the infringer.

(At this point it was announced that Mr. Walker's time was up.)

Mr. WALKER. I promised to stop at the end of an hour, and I will do so.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you finish what you desire to say regarding the provisions of this bill in five minutes additional?

Mr. WALKER. Well, I can talk five minutes; I ought to have ten. [Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. We will give you five minutes more because of the interruptions.

Mr. WALKER. Yes.

Section 30, in respect to this matter of importations--I am now speaking on behalf of the gentlemen, no one of whom I know, namely, those who desire to be protected in this country against the competition of the labor of Europe in getting up copyrighted books.