REVIEWS
| Published date | 01 July 1945 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1945.tb02709.x |
| Date | 01 July 1945 |
REVIEWS
I65
in the press nor
on
his premises, yhile his training and experience had been
somewhat exceptional. In the latter case the Court
of
Appeal empliasised
that its decision did not imply that
all
ophthalmic opticians were exercising
a
profession but merely that this particular optician couk---on the special
facts
of
his case-reasonably be held
to
be
so
doing.
Two interesting cases arising under the Income Tax Acts should be
noted on this questioii
;
in each case the decision
of
the Appeal Commis-
sioners was reversed because they had misdirected themselves in law,
In
Dauies
v. Brailhwaile,
[r931]
z
K.R.
628,
it
was held that an actress
exercised
a
profession and not an employment since her mode
of
livelihood
contemplated the making
of
a
series of successive engagements
or
contracts.
Seldon
v.
Croont-
Johnson,
[15)32]
I
K.H.
759,
emphasises that throughout
his career
a
barrister carries on the same profession, that of
a
“practising
barrister,” with the result that, on appointment
as
King‘s Counsel, he
cannot be said
to
have ceased
to
carry on his former profession
of
*’
barris-
ter” and
to
have
set
up
a
new one
of
”
King’s Counsel,” though,
of
course
the work he was engaged on might be very different.
-4.
FARNSWORTH
REVIEWS
PATENT
REFORM.
By MICHAEL
FOLANYI,
F.R.S.
The Students Book-
Inventions have played an outstanding part in the development
of
our
industrial civilisation. It
has
been said that the face of life has changed
more during the
last
century than during the whole
of
the rest
of
history.
a
change due almost entirely to mechanical inventions. The
rewarding
of
inventors
is
evidently, therefore.
a
very
important matter, and thought
comniensurate with its importance
has
never been given to
it.
The method of rewarding inventors which has normally been follo\vc~tl
is that
of
the conferment upon the inventor
of
monopoly rights to the
usr
of
the invention. Siricc thc Statute
of
Ivlonopolies in
1623,
“rstablished the
basis
of
all
modern patent law
”
it has been the practise
to
limit the
pcrioil
of such inonopolies to fairly short periods, such
as
the one
of
fr)urttwi
~(YII-S
c-stablished by that act and now extended to sisteen years.
This statute
has
“sustained
no
altrration in principle during the
intervening three huiitlretl years,”
and
it
is
a
remarkable
and
up
to
;I
point
a
creclitablr
fact
that state authorities
ant1
law courts should
Iiavr
been ablc
to
administer this rather primitive conception of the way to
award iitvcntors
so
as to
build
up
a
body
of
law which still functions
more
or
less adequately in the vastly changed conditions
of
twentietli-
century industry.
Divergencies there have been
iii
the developrnent
of
the law, and these
arc
considered by some historians’
to
havc materially affected thc output
of
inventions:
as
in
the
USA. during the nineteenth century. whcre the law
relating
to
the improvement
of
inventions is said
to
have been particularly
favourable.
There has, however, for many years
now
been
a
considerable and
growing body of thoughtful opinion which finds the present system
quitr
inadequate
to
the changed character
of
industry and
of
invention.
1‘11~
CJ.
J.
G.
Crowthcr:
Grent
Americwz
S~ierrtisfs.
I’d.
11.
l’mgiiin
Series.
shop, Trumpington Street, Cambridge.
2s.
6d.
To continue reading
Request your trial