“I would like it to take place as soon as possible,” he said. “Before the completion of the hearings.”
“Tonight,” said Baird. “I’ll scrap my whole program for this evening and give you a chance to state your case to the whole country.”
Mart nodded. “I’ll meet you at the studio.”
He didn’t require any preparation. He knew exactly what he wanted to say. It was only a matter of keeping Baird from mangling his whole story. It was obvious that he was going to try.
He sat Mart at a bad angle, to begin with, so that his face was away from the cameras, and only Baird could make direct appeal to those who watched and listened. As soon as they were on the air, Mart shifted his chair so that he faced the camera squarely. Disconcerted, Baird was forced to shift or appear to be sitting behind Mart. He shifted.
He opened with a stream of talk that gave the audience a none too subtle view of the difficulties that television commentators endure in the course of their public service work. The impression was left that Dr. Martin Nagle was among the most difficult crosses that any commentator had to bear.
He said, “Dr. Nagle, will you tell our audience just what your concept of a satisfactory patent system is?”
“A patent system,” said Mart, “is intended to be a form of remuneration to a discoverer in return for the use of his work. In the case of —”
“Well, now, just a moment, Dr. Nagle. The reward offered by a patent is in the nature of a monopoly, and that is the crux of our present problem. You cannot say that it would be justifiable to grant a person a monopoly on just any kind of a discovery because he happened to be the first to discover it.”
“I did not use the word monopoly,” said Mart. “I said remuneration. In the case of —”