A Postscript to Mr. Arnold
MR. ARNOLD dismisses my article entitled “We Depend on Invention” in the July issue of the Atlantic by saying: “The whole effect is like telling a man whose head is splitting with an abscessed tooth not to have it pulled, because teeth in general are such fine things and because he still has some good teeth in his head.” This is not such bad advice when the patient is American industry based on invention and the dentist is Dr. Thurman Arnold; for the way Dr. Arnold handles his instruments indicates clearly that, in going after the aching tooth, he is likely to knock out all the good teeth as well. I shall continue to raise my voice in praise of the good points of the American patent system, which Dr. Arnold terms “the patent racket,” because I believe that by doing this I am actually having a good effect on the dentist himself.
Consider how Mr. Arnold has floundered in the three short months from May to August. Early in May, Mr. Arnold was casually suggesting to the Senate Patents Committee that invention and research should be taken away from private American industry and turned over to government departments. This amounted to knocking all the teeth out of the patient’s head and ramming them down its throat. A couple of weeks later, he casually prepared Senate Bill 2491, which exploded a load of dynamite under the entire American patent system and was tantamount to knocking out about three-fourths of the patient’s teeth, good, bad, and indifferent. He then casually dropped this Senate Bill and in his article in the July issue of the Atlantic suggested four separate remedies for the aching tooth, which may be compared with four separate extractions; while in his article this month he drops all his other remedies and proposes a single remedy. But believe it or not, before the ink is dry on his present article, he now appears before the Senate Patents Committee with a new bill containing a flock new remedies based on an entirely new thought, which is this: Every patent owner a criminal if (a) he “unreasonably” refuses to license others to share the benefits of his patent, and thus “unreasonably” limits the supply of the patented article; and (b) if, though sharing his patent, he tries to prevent his licensee from undercutting him in the market. In both these cases, he is liable to go to prison as well as to be fined and to have his patent canceled. Thus does Mr. Arnold encourage American invention!
But, glory be! the inventor or industrialist will escape the possible imprisonment or patent cancellation if he informs Mr. Arnold in advance, so that Mr. Arnold can sue him by civil action if he wishes. Thus, a prosecuting attorney of the Department of Justice may ultimately become the arbiter of all American industry, since no corporation or inventor, great or small, under fear of imprisonment, will dare to make any patent agreement which affects the price or supply of a patented article without first obtaining the blessing of Mr. Arnold. This will require the employment of hundreds upon hundreds of lawyers by Mr. Arnold, for they are to examine every such patent agreement, and every patent suit, and have the right to attack every patent sued on.
Space does not permit me to answer Mr. Arnold’s additional allegations, except to warn his readers that American justice does not accept as gospel the accusations of a public prosecutor which have never been proved in court; and that most of Mr. Arnold’s statements are in this category.
Mr. Arnold ended his peroration before the Senate Patents Committee on July 31 by stating: “The time to strike, and strike hard, is now.” If Mr. Arnold really wishes to make himself the arbiter of American industry, the best time to strike at our industrialists and inventors is unquestionably now, while they are bending every effort to win the war. But I believe Mr. Arnold’s good sense and good intentions will lead him away from any kind of striking. After all, the second front should be in Europe, and not in the United States.
LAWRENCE LANGNER