Page images
PDF
EPUB

of one opinion, but which has not come before the Section at this meeting for lack of time. The officers have repeatedly considered the question of the great desirability of having one issue of the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION devoted to legal education. We think that this will have a remarkable effect in accomplishing what we have centered our attention upon for some time. That purpose each year has been to bring about in this Section of the American Bar Association co-operation between all organizations engaged in legal education. A number of these organizations have a definite mission in legal education. There are 35 definitely organized state boards of bar examiners, and there are other boards of bar examiners of a loose character. Last year at Boston there were 89 state and local bar associations represented by delegations from 42 states. Of these many have, and all can have, committees on legal education which, with proper organization, can bring a great deal of intensive force to a forward movement in legal education. In addition to that, the Law School Association, which from its origin has been an associate organization of the American Bar Association, has grown to 49 law schools. Of these schools 24 are state university law schools supported in large measure by the state.

Here again we have an opportunity for influence in the different states in support of the cause of legal education, and in advancing the standards of legal education. Outside of the Law School Association, there are 96 law schools which for one reason or another have never joined the Association. Many of these are schools of character, and they ought to be represented in the American Bar Association, and especially in the Section of Legal Education. Our efforts this year have been to make a start in this direction.

I report with pleasure that we succeeded to a considerable. extent in getting into the actual work of the Association this year representatives of quite a number of law schools. Twentysix law schools sent representatives this year. We hope next year that we shall have representatives from all of the law schools and from all the organized state boards of law examiners. We hope to have representatives from committees on legal education in the various state bar associations also. We feel that with proper co-ordination this reorganized Section will become a

great body of broad, forward-looking men of constructive ability who will carry on what has well been described as the war against inefficiency in legal education. The aim is not to make the Section simply a gathering of other associations, but a gathering of men who are members of the American Bar Association, acting as members of the Section of Legal Education.

Section of Patent, Trade-Mark and Copyright Law:

Wallace R. Lane, of Illinois:

For the past year there has been considerable activity in the Section relative to pushing certain bills concerning patent, copyright and trade-mark litigation and affairs appurtenant thereto. The most important measure has been that relating to the increase of the salaries and equipment of the Patent Office, and to an increase in the force employed in the Patent Office. The salaries were fixed about 70 years ago. The equipment has been depleted so that the work is not satisfactorily done. The entire country has risen to the emergency, with the result that the House passed a bill that was requested, but it passed the Senate in modified form, just as the Senate was about to adjourn. We are asking that the measure be approved by the American Bar Association, as it has been by various other associations.

The other matters of importance were the separation of the Patent Office from the Department of the Interior, and the change of the law as to compensation for infringement of patents, which we think need not be changed, as the present rules of the court make the compensation entirely adequate and satisfactory; then the question of the creation of a court for patent appeals.

The Section has considered the report, which is printed and filed, and has adopted with but one dissenting vote the entire report and the following Resolution in reference thereto.

Resolved, First, that we urge prompt legislation increasing the force, salaries and equipment of the Patent Office; but regard as unnecessary and inexpedient the proposed legislation concerning compensation for infringement and that for separating the Patent Office from the Department of the Interior.

Second, that in our judgment no legislation is desirable in the direction of substituting a special court of patent appeals for the appellate jurisdiction now existing, for reasons stated in the reports adverse to such legislation submitted by the standing

committees of this Association on Patent, Trade-Mark and Copyright Law in 1918 and 1919, respectively, published in the July issue of the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION JOURNAL for such years, in which reports we concur.

We recommend for adoption by this Association the report and this resolution.

I move the adoption of the report.

Joseph R. Edson, of the District of Columbia:

Last year at Boston the Standing Committee on Patent, Trade-Mark and Copyright Law made a report in which it recommended that the resolutions offered at the meeting in Saratoga Springs in 1907 and at the Cleveland meeting in 1918, be rescinded; and Mr. Frederick P. Fish was so alarmed at the boldness of the committee in asking the Association to stultify itself that he arose and made some remarks which I would ask the Secretary to read.

Thereupon the Secretary read from the proceedings of the Boston meeting, Annual Report 1919, pages 40 and 41, concluding with the following motion offered at that meeting by Mr. Fish and duly passed:

"I move that the report be referred back to the committee with instructions to report at the next annual meeting of the Association, what, if any, legislation is desirable in the direction of the establishment of a Court of Patent Appeals, with the reasons for and against the establishment of such a court."

Joseph R. Edson:

On the very next day the new Constitution was adopted, which abolished the Committee on Patents to whom this motion of Mr. Fish was referred. I wrote to the Executive Committee and asked what was to be done with that report. I supposed that automatically under the motion of Mr. Fish the report would be recommitted, and that the committee would report or it would automatically go over to the Section to be elected at this meeting. Now, if that is not so, then I move that the resolution then offered by Mr. Fish be referred to the Patent Section for consideration and report next year.

Robert H. Parkinson, of Illinois:

I wish to support the motion for the approval of the report.

and to make this explanation why I do so. It is true that for two successive years the Committee on Patent Law had pressed upon its attention the question whether there should be an effort made to procure legislation creating a special court of patent appeals. I happened to be the Chairman of that committee during both of those years, and I had associated with me on the committee during the two years seven very eminent men of large experience in this particular field of litigation; three of my associates on the committe last year were new members. We went thoroughly into the subject, and we reported unanimously against such legislation as being a step downward and as a step that we regarded as in every aspect undesirable. Our report of two years ago was approved. At the Boston meeting, where we had been directed again to report on the subject, we reported unanimously to the same effect, although the personnel of the committee was different. It is true that Mr. Fish moved for a reference of the subject back to the committee for further report the next year. I made no objection to that. Immediately after that, the Consitution practically substituted the Section of Patent Law for the Committee on Patent Law for work of this character. Our Secretary, Mr. Whitelock, wrote to me that that would mean that this matter would go to the Section of Patent Law instead of to the Committee on Patent Law. Yesterday, our Section passed a resolution that was unanimous, with the exception of the vote of Mr. Edson, expressing our concurrence in those reports, and our very strong conviction that for the reasons stated no such special court of patent appeals ought to be created.

I may say further that the matter was brought before the Patent Law Association, at Chicago, and made the subject of a special meeting last winter, and a copy of the committee's report sent out in advance, and the matter was discussed for a whole evening, and the vote was unanimous against this proposed court. I hope the report made by the Chairman of the Section will be accepted.

William A. Ketcham, of Indiana:

If there is any one thing in life that as a practicing lawyer I am not interested in, it is the peculiarities of patent practice. I haven't anything to do with it, but I understand perfectly well that there are very great interests in this country that do not

feel about it as I do. One of the dear friends of my life for nearly 50 years until he died, with one exception the foremost lawyer in the State of Indiana, had it very close to his heart that appeals in patent cases should be segregated from appeals generally to the Supreme Court; and I think he was right about it, and I hope that this Association will not go on record against the work of Judge Taylor's lifetime. I do not believe there is a man on the Bench in the Supreme Court that has the acquaintance through a long series of practice to do justice to a subject that is so important to the people of this country as the right of patent appeal. I think this Association will make a great mistake-that court is over two and a half years behind in its business now, and under existing circumstances it has to dispose of such patent appeals as come before it-and I trust that this report will not be approved by the Association.

Sidney G. Stricker, Ohio:

I am not a patent lawyer, and belong very much to the same school as General Ketcham. I have great respect for Mr. Parkinson and the committees that have reported against this proposed new court for patent appeals. As a general practitioner I know nothing of patent law. The average lawyer knows nothing of patent law; the average United States Court Judge before his elevation to the Bench is not a patent lawyer, and all the patent law he knows he generally learns while on the Bench. That is a rather unsafe security for the large interests involved in this great question, and I sincerely hope this Association, which has heretofore endorsed the establishment of such a court for patent appeals, "will not stultify itself," as Mr. Fish said, by repudiating the action of this Association heretofore taken and will go on record for the establishment of such a court. For these reasons I second the motion made by Mr. Edson.

E. W. Bradford, of the District of Columbia:

The Supreme Court of the United States is not behind in its docket, as General Ketcham supposed. A case appealed can be heard now within a year, or even less.

Amasa C. Paul, of Minnesota :

If it were true that all patent appeals went to the Supreme Court of the United States, I should agree with General Ketcham

« PreviousContinue »