Chapter M: HEEMSKERK AZN replies. He tenders thanks for the urbanity observed

throughout the discussion. But it is undeniable that his opinion agrees with the existing right and the prevalent ideas in Europe and America. Of course, if revocation is intended, improvement of the law has to be given up. In reply to the Minister, he has no doubt but that the desire for revocation originated in Prussia, but he has said that in Germany the tide has turned in favour of Patents, on the strength of the “Deutsche Industrie Zeitung” and Klosterman’s recent work. The revocation of the Patent-Law may have been contemplated, but the Prussian Government is not now disposed to have the idea carried out. He asks but for what the English equally asked for—_i.e._, a renewed inquiry. What, after all, is foreign experience to the exercise of law in the Netherlands? How does the project tally with the establishment of a new division of industry in the Department for Internal Affairs, the chief occupation of which is the granting of Patents? He will not argue with the Minister on general remarks, but merely on the one relating to the abolition of newspaper stamps. Why has that tax been repealed? If henceforth a larger quantity of paper be covered with print, the tax has most likely been done away with to promote the diffusion of general knowledge. He supposes, however, the Minister will agree with Cicero, who says that fame acquired by means of deeds which are not useful is but vanity. The stamp duty has been repealed in order to be useful. And in the present case, will the Minister deny all benefits to him who does his utmost, so as to be useful? He replies also to the several members who have made speeches; he contradicts M. de Bruyn Kops about a general disposition supposed to exist in France towards revocation of Patent-Laws. Michel Chevalier only has changed his mind, but there is no opinion prevailing against Patents. Quite recently both Joseph Garnier and Wolowski have refuted Chevalier’s arguments.

The hon. member further insists upon _his_ interpretation of the Parliamentary debates in England, and names several instances of inventors having acquired wealth. He does not admit that there is a difference between Patent-right and Copyright; imitation of articles of fabrication is, and will remain, as immoral as it is unfair. He shrinks from touching the legal side of the question, but asks whether, because of the Patent-right being restricted to a fixed time, the conclusion must needs be drawn that absolutely no right should exist, and that there should be no plea in equity whatever for an inventor to get rewarded for his labours? Does the abstract question of occupation of immaterial things cripple that hypothesis in any way? He considers it from a more general and social point of view, and vindicates his assertion that an inventor is entitled to a certain amount of protection for his work, by which, at all events, he renders a service to society; that Patents are incitements to many useful inventions and to industry, which is equally M. de Bruyn Kops’ opinion, as stated in his work on political economy. He has been asked why, when in the Ministry, he did not introduce a Patent Reform Law. In the first place, he begs to observe that much was to be done then, and besides, considering the smallness of our country, he indulged in the anticipation that the idea of an international agreement might gradually have gained ground. Should he, however, have lived longer (politically speaking), he _would_ most likely have introduced a Bill for remodelling the Patent-Law. As for M. Wintgen’s opinion, it is almost superfluous to say that one is not bound to have in every respect homogeneous ideas with one’s political friends. In reply to the question why, as a member of the House, he does not make a proposal, he accepts the invitation, and will in September next be prepared to take, as a member of the House, the initiative of presenting a Bill for Reforming the Patent-Law, provided the project now pending be no longer discussed.

M. VAN ZINNICK BERGMANN replies, and maintains his opinion about the justice of the Patent-right.

M. DE BRUYN KOPS refutes M. Heemskerk’s reply, and demonstrates, by means of fresh examples, that the Patent-right is intolerable and most obnoxious. He considers the question now merely economically; MM. van Houten and Godefroi having so ably discussed the legal points. The large benefits acquired by a few are, as taken from his point of view, prejudicial to the public at large, and against these few advantages there are great damages, as large capitals dwindle away in the chase for the snare of Patents. M. Heemskerk himself favours the revocation of Patents on the right “of admission.” What is left after that? Nothing but the Patents of invention. Why not try entire freedom and removal of all impediments?

M. GODEFROI will add one word more with reference to M. Heemskerk’s readiness in accepting the challenge, of framing a new project of law, and he must say that, whatever be the nature of such proposal, it can hardly be expected to satisfy those who condemn the principles of Patent-Law. But the orator who is so well posted must certainly have framed already the main points from which the project would have to be formed. By stating and explaining those points, he would have done more service to the House than by mere opposition to those who favour abolition. The hon. member repeats the important query, whether Patents should be granted without previously inquiring into the merits of the case; and then Government would have to give its opinion just as well on an improved chignon as on an improved steam-engine.

M. GEFKEN gives his motives for voting in favour of the project. He says, where there is a right of property, it must be permanent, and even transferable to the heirs; but a guarantee for a few years would not do. He consequently does not recognise the right of property, and merely considers the question with a view to usefulness; and, as far as that goes, his experience in administrative and juridical offices has taught him that Patents are not actually useful, and, on the contrary, lead to speculation and impede the development of many a useful concern. He favours free competition.

M. VAN VOORTHUYSEN will not revert to M. Bergmann’s remark about his being accustomed to recapitulate the debates, but denies having intended to force upon him the authority of M. Wintgen’s opinion. Such is not the case; but the fact of the opinions of two such jurists as MM. Godefroi and Wintgen agreeing has set his mind at rest as far as legal opinion is concerned.