And in question 1954 a worse mistake is made by substituting “some” for “none” in the following:—
There being 400 Patents now in existence affecting your trade, none of which are made use of by you.
I have right also to complain of mistakes which do not originate with the printer. The following opinions and arguments imputed to me I disclaim:—
Had Mr. Macfie said this, we should not have been surprised. It closely resembles his contention that a book should be protected because it is something tangible, whereas an invention is something which, if not invisible, is in the nebulous condition of an idea.
What I wrote will be found below, [page 241]. My argument is, that the subjects of Copyright being tangible can be identified as the author’s production, and nobody else’s; and that the subjects of Patent-right being modes or plans, belong to the region of ideas which may easily occur to anybody besides the first inventor.
Again: the reviewer says of Lord Stanley:—
The latter, while supporting Mr. Macfie on the main issue distinctly repudiated his leading arguments.
This would be strange if true, seeing I coincide in all his Lordship’s arguments. How, then, can he, twelve pages further on, say again:—
As for Lord Stanley, he did not hesitate to dissent from Mr. Macfie’s arguments, while giving a qualified support to his motion.