The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1848-09-30

"a
THE TELEGRAPH Survive have already given
an abstract of the decision recently made by the
U. S. District Judge in Kentucky, in the case of
Morse and others against O'Reilly and others, for
an alleged violation of Morse's patent. More clear
ly to illustrate the scope of this decision, the Wash
ington Union has been furnished with the following
additional information, viz:
Morse's first patent, after describing the ma
chnery by which he arrives at his result, concludes
as follows, viz:
lido not propose to limit myself to the specific machinery,
described in the foregoing specification and Claims the
Of nv invention being the use of the motive power of
the electric OF galvanc current which call electro
ism however developed for marking printing inegiby
Characters signs or letters at any distances being
pcatOn Of that power of which claim to be the INST IN
ventoT or discOverer.
On behalf of Prof. Morse, it was maintained that
there were two distinct general classes of patents
st Where an inventor has accomplished result entirely
by whatsoever. his patent may secure TO MIN
that result as well as his means OF arriving a T. Inc result
step in and by other means arrive at the same re-
suit he may deprive the original and more menon9ns IN
ventor Of the entire benefit Of his study and labor This is
the likely to happen nom the notorious TACT mat e
best system of machinery to accomplish given result IS sell
dom devised at Once and if the result could not be secured
by patent the original inventor would IN almost every case
have other merit but that of devsng some improvement
3D. The second general class of patents is for new modes
Of arriving old results in which the result forms no part OF
the invention In such patents for machinery only
for results already well
known; and whoever nvents new and improved process
take patent for it. and supeede all pnor patents
for machinery processes conducive to the same reSu
Moses patents embrace both the result and the process both
being entirely new; and although other may invent
patent improved processes machinery they cannot use
them dnng the existence of Morse patent to produce the
saa result By the same power without license from fToeS-
s0f More or his assigns.
On the other hand it was maintained that results
are not patentable directly or indirectly and that
all patents, to be valid, must be for processes or
machinery only. Very numerous authorities, both
American and British, were adduced on both sides
to sustain their respective positions.
The injunction granted is upon the express gound
that Morses patents cover the result well as the
process, and are nevertheless valid The following
passage from a letter dated Frankfort Kentucky,
the 18th instant exhibits the length and breadth OF
the decision, by giving an extract from the injunc-
ton as actually issued, viz;
The Injunction bond and bond for costs in the case OF
Morse ct al o. Reilly ct al. both executed, and the
subpoena and injunction are in the hands of the marshal
After specifying against the use OF the Columbian InsIu
ment particularly, the injunction says Or other tele
graph worked by the motvepower of electro magnetism,
and consisting of combined circuits of electricity connected
by what called by the compliments the TeCeDcr and by
YOU the defendant the utat0r and the register worked by
electro magnem in whole in part or combination
whatever within and in violation of the exclusive rights
here determined granted by the letters patent the
panan Samuel + B. Morse until the further order of the
court until the effect Of this injunction shall have expired
While the friends of Morse think this Injunction
broad enough to cover any attempt at evasion, Mr.
O'Reilly, as already announced by himself, con.
siders that it effects only the Columbian instrument
and consequently announced his intention of keep
ing in use other instruments on his line in Kentucky