Octave Chanute to Louis-Pierre Mouillard 16-Jun-1892

Sender	Octave Chanute
Recipient	Louis-Pierre Mouillard
Date sent	1892-06-16
From location
To location
Communication type
Language
Refers to flight?
Tech fields
Length (in words)
Full text available	1

Chanute discusses patents a lot here. He refers to a "Mr. Whittlesey" who wrote him to say that the US Patent Office "refuses to admit the novelty of (Mouillard's) lubricator" (invention) "and points [us to] the patents of Gregory (303,999) and of Freeborn (429,125) which you already have, [and to] those of Laval (280,913) and of Owen (212,500) which I am mailing you under separate cover." (We have none of those patents in this system at this writing, but could add them.)

Chanute says:

The Patent Office tells us the "Gregory's as well as Freeborn's pipes could be applied to the keel without forming a new invention, and that oil could be distributed by means of Owen's pipes without novelty of invention." We could change our application a bit to get a compulsory patent by way of placing the pipes, but it would have little value.

It seems to me that Owen's patent is the hardest to get around. As he lives in Washington, and as I suppose that he (as most of the inventors) has been unable to get any benefit out of his patent, I asked Mr. Whittlesey to call on him and to find out how much he wants for it. This patent is of no value by itself, but combined with your own and with General Hutchinson's, which I mentioned to you, it may have some value.

We have to go slow with Mr. Owen or else he may get an exaggerated idea of the value of his patent which dates back to 1885. Mr. Whittlesey writes me that he is making inquiries about Owen and that he is going to have an interview with him. I shall keep you posted on the negotiations and I would be pleased to know what you think of Owen's patent.

I believe that in England and in France patents are issued to anyone who applies for them and then let the inventors fight it out among themselves as to the novelties of their ideas. In the United States they try to protect the inventor and no patent is issued unless the idea is: 1: new, and 2: useful. If an inventor has previously conceived an idea which another inventor tries to use in his patent, the latter's application is rejected or else it is properly limited.

(Chanute's comment about the relative ease of getting a patent across countries gives us a sense of how people thought of it at the time. example)

Note change of address - 413 E. Huron St.

(Chanute may have just moved to that tony place. For research: Where'd he live before?)

Full text is online at MS State.