Page:Prerogatives of the Crown.djvu/201

Cii.X. Sec.IL] Patents, l«8i the patent seems to have been very properly granted to him, for his method of securing buildings from fire." Though a patentee denominate his discovery " a method," or a " prin- ciple" only, yet if the thing invented be in fact something substantial, or a new and useful effect produced by a new application of means known before, the verbal inaccuracy will not vitiate the grant [a). The statute allows of patents for inventions with this quali- iication, " that they be not contrary to the law, nor mischiev- ous to the State," in these three respects : first, by " raising the prices of commodities at home ;" secondly, by being hurt- ful to trade ; or thirdly, by being generally inconvenient. Ac- cording to the letter of the statute, the saving goes only to the sole working and making ,- the sole buying^ selling and using remain under the general prohibition : and with apparent good reason for so remaining, for the exclusive privilege of buying, selling and using, could hardly be brought within the qualifi- cation of not being contrary to law, and mischievous to the Aitate, in the respects mentioned (b). The rule that the patent must not be more extensive than the invention will be considered in our observations on the specification. Subject to these rules the patent and specification ought, it jseems, to be liberally construed : there should be no leaning against it ; and the patent generally contains an express clause that it shall be taken and construed in the most beneficial sense in favour of the patentee. In Turner v. Winter (c), Mr. J. BuUer said, " when attempts are made to evade a fair patent, I am strongly inclined in favour of the patentee." Though in Hornblower v, Boulton(<i), Lord Kenyon remarked, that " he was not one of those who greatly favored patents ; for though in many instances the public were benefited by them, yet on striking the balance on this subject he thought that great oppression was practised on inferior mechanics by ihose who were more opulent." Secondly, the statute requires that the patent should be («) 2 Hen. Bla. 477, per Rooke, J. (c) 1 T. R. 606. 2 Baraew and Aid. 350. (rf) 8 Ibid, ^8. (b) 2 Hen. Bla. 492. granted