In the meantime I had submitted to them various plans of submarines, copies of my patents, and even my secret data, including copies of patents pending, all to enable them to go ahead, as I considered the agreement settled by their wire of acceptance. I had also advised them how to overcome certain difficulties in boats which they then had under construction for the Russian Government at their Kiel plant, the Germania Werft.
Before I succeeded in getting the power of attorney from my directors in America authorizing me to sign up the agreement, the great industrial revolution started in Russia, immediately after the Russo-Japanese war, and the Krupps informed me that, owing to that fact, they had reconsidered their idea of going into Russia and withdrew from the arrangement. Their attorney in Berlin informed me that on looking up the patent situation they had found that "I had not protected myself in Germany and that they were free to build 'Lake' type boats in Germany and expected to continue to do so." This was true, for, like most pioneer inventors, I had not succeeded in securing sufficient capital to finance and protect my fundamental inventions in all countries, which would have involved very large amounts in taking them out and paying the yearly tax.
So much for Germany.
In 1905, while residing in Berlin, Germany, I was called to Rome and sat three days with a commission appointed by Admiral Mirabello, at that time Italian Minister of Marine, regarding their construction of submarines. I then learned that the Italian Government had started on a plan of building submarines of substantially my type, that they had several under construction at their Venice Arsenal after the design of Major Laurenti, a naval constructor; that certain difficulties which they explained to me had arisen, and that they had not succeeded in getting any of their boats to function satisfactorily submerged. I came to the conclusion that their trouble was due to lack of longitudinal stability, and advised the Commission how to increase this. Shortly afterward I was advised that they had corrected their trouble and that the boats then worked satisfactorily.
Major Laurenti, at this time, resigned from the Italian Navy and became affiliated with the Fiat Company, and has designed quite a large number of successful submarine boats, all of which have buoyant superstructures and are designed to operate on a level keel by the use of hydroplanes. These boats are of the "Lake" type, so far as invention goes.
There is a difference, however, between invention and design. Invention introduces a new method, a new principle, or a new form of construction, to accomplish a certain purpose in a new way. Many modifications of design may be made which do not involve invention.
As an illustration, on August 14, 1907, Major Laurenti applied for a United States patent on a submarine or submersible boat in which the attempt was made to secure a patent on slight variations of design over the "Lake" type. The patent office records show that many amendments were made and hearings held in the endeavor to evade the foundation patent of Lake, No. 650,758, which was applied for April 2, 1897, over ten years before Laurenti applied for a patent. The patent office consistently and persistently held that the slight difference in design did not involve invention over "Lake." After arguments and hearings, extending over a period of over three years, Major Laurenti was finally obliged to accept a patent restricted to details of construction, most of which were in themselves not new to me, as they had already been used in various modifications of my inventions and consisted in such changes as would naturally be worked out by any good hull or engine draftsmen while developing the designs of a vessel.
Our patent laws are too free in allowing the granting of patents on modifications of design while fundamental patents are still in force. This works great hardship on original inventors, forcing them to take out a great many patents on features of design rather than on invention. I have taken out nearly one hundred United States patents with over one thousand one hundred claims covering a few fundamental inventions, some of which cover details of construction for which I should not have been forced to seek protection.
All original inventors complain of this system. I know of several instances where patents on modifications of design have been granted, which modifications have been in common use for several years by others, but were only considered as a design and not as an invention. Then some designer hits on the same arrangement and considers he has made an invention, and applies for and takes out a patent which has already been in common use but has been looked upon purely as a design by its originator rather than an invention. Then the original designer may be hauled up before the courts and put to great expense to prove that it was in prior use as a design.