or a button, become rapidly a source of no
inconsiderable profit. Is this beneficial to inventors? Is it an
encouragement of science, or a proper object of legislative provision,
that the improver of the most trivial mechanical application should be
carefully protected, while those who open the hidden sources of
myriads of patents, are unrewarded, and incapable of remunerating
themselves? We seriously incline to think that, as the matter at
present stands, an entire erasure from the statute-books of patent
provision would be of service to science, and perhaps to the
community; each tradesman would depend for success upon his own
activity, and the perfection he could give his manufacture, and the
scientific searcher after experimental truths would not find his path
barred by prohibitions from speculative empirics.

According to the present patent laws, it is more than questionable
whether the discoverer of a great scientific principle could pursue
his own discovery, or whether he would not be arrested on the
threshold by a subsequent patentee; if Jacobi lived in constitutional
England instead of despotic Russia, it is doubtful if he could work
out his discovery of the electrotype--we say _doubtful_; for, as far
as we can learn, it seems hitherto judicially undecided whether the
mere use of a patent, not for sale or a lucrative object, is such a
use within the statute of James as would be an infringement of a
patentee's rights. It appears to be settled, that a previous
experimental and unpublished use by one party, does not prevent
another subsequent inventor of the same process from patenting it;
and, by parity of reasoning, we should say, that if a party have the
advantage of patenting an invention which can be found to have been
previously used, but not for sale, he should not have the additional
privilege of prohibiting the same party, or others, from proceeding
with their experiments. There are, however, not wanting arguments for
the other view. The practice of a patented invention, for one's own
benefit or pleasure, deprives the patentee of a possible source of
profit; for it cannot be said that the party experimenting, if
prohibited, might not apply for a license to the patentee. Take, for
instance, the notorious and justly censured patent of Daguerre.
Supposing, for argument's sake, this patent to be valid, can a private
individual, under the existing patent laws, take photographic views or
portraits for his own