Lincoln’s Inn <1>
2 Sept 1854
My dear Sir
I did not, truth to say, peruse the opinion of Mr Field <2> with any greater satisfaction than You did and in a short conversation with him drew his attention to his view of the Law as regards “Improvements” – but he adhered to his opinion and time did not admit then of further argument. I think however he is decidedly wrong and so soon as he returns, will endeavour to convince him of it.
We must not however read his opinion as if every thing in it was indispensable: for as You say, no Patent could answer such a test: what he means is that the nearer we can approach to the “ beau ideal <3>” he has presented to us of a Patent case, the greater chance of success we shall have.
I waited therefore to have your view of the matter in the first instance, in order to see what are the first and most important steps to be taken <4> at this conjuncture.
Field asks You to distinguish the improvements published in 1839 <5> from those patented in 1841, <6> in order that we may be prepared in case of need to distinguish and to prove them – Your memoranda do only assert that or rather refer to them without distinguishing them: now if by any accident, the claim in the specification shod comprise any thing before published by You – it could be fatal – the precaution therefore is taken to try the argument now –
The very crcstance <7> you remind me of viz of Mr Grove’s <8> advising You not to disclaim the bromide shews that Field’s position is wrong – if not necessary to the claim then, it cannot be now.
I don’t think there is the least danger.
I cannot tell you [illegible deletion] who is retained by the Deft <9> as a leader – nor can I find out as a matter of course but it will most likely transpire before the commencement of the Term.
Please to answer as many of the points as you can without entering into any further discussion of the “improvement” question for I quite agree in that view & did so on the first blush of the thing.
believe me to remain My dear Sir Ever Your’s faithfully
J. H. Bolton
Notes:
1. One of the four Inns of Court, the ‘colleges’ of barristers at the English Bar. Bolton had his chambers [lawyer’s offices and, at the time, living-quarters also] there.
2. Probably Edwin Wilkins Field (1804–1871), reformer of Chancery.
3. perfect example
4. WHFT sought to show that the Collodion process was simply an improvement of his Calotype process and that its use by professional practitioners infringed his patent rights – which though relinquished in respect of amateur photography, were still in force against professional portrait-photographers.
5. WHFT, Some Account of the Art of Photogenic Drawing, or the Process by which Natural Objects may be made to Delineate Themselves without the Aid of the Artist’s pencil. Read before the Royal Society, January 31, 1839 (London: R & J E Taylor, 1839). This process was photogenic drawing.
6. WHFT’s patent for Photographic Pictures, No. 8,842, dated 8 February 1841.
7. circumstance
8. Sir William Robert Grove (1811–1896), scientist.
9. William Henry Silvester, whose professional name as a portrait photographer was Martin Laroche. Evidence was being gathered to show that he was infringing WHFT’s photographic patent. The case, Talbot v. Laroche, which was heard in December 1854, was decided against WHFT.