count. So liberal a misjoinder as this is perhaps without parallel. The court stated expressly that, where the printing of many copies is a single continuous act, but one offence is committed. There should be a clear divergence as to each transaction, both as to time and circumstances.[1]
It is clear, after a consideration of the cases under this statute, that the strictness of construction adopted by the courts, the h burden of proof which is imposed upon the informer, and the obvious difficulty of proving a fraudulent intent on the part of a defendant, combine to dissuade a person from undertaking the expense and trouble of litigation merely for the sake of plunder. Only a genuinely interested or inspired individual is likely to turn informer; and others are easily dissuaded from lodging complaint so soon as the true nature of their prospects is made clear to them.
It is more than likely, therefore, that actions qui tam under the patent statutes will continue to be a rarity in the Federal courts.
- ↑ Taft v. Stephens Litho. Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 28. See also United States v. Eagan, 30 Fed. Rep. 498.
