The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-09-20

r,a~wr.v@ ~~ss.
Wsrrs bsioW a. sbs,raci u the decision recently
maze B, tts uaei Stis. sisusi ~ NE IN Kentucky in
ts u .ioss AL oasfs against oRsily AMI others
iof an alleged violation u Morss's patent
Nose olssry lasir4s the scope Of tbs decision
have bern iurasAsa w,ih the following additional in
iar1nai.sa. VIZ
Marsss trsi passai srr describing the machinery by
Elch b. At his resali. ooaclu les a. follows,
w
81 40 an proposes 10 ihnf myself 70 the specific
tb.urF, o. pr ~ aacha~fy Described thr foregoing
spdhrailpa aat elaias d my inyeuiion be
shs 49, 81 iha psWcf ~ ths electric gaivsnic
uurspl sh.eh esH sisgtssnagussi.an however deye-
ule g. 'uafsins pFiuiaE iaessY characters. Signs
seFs, suy disiaaoes being application OF mai
lg~rt = ~hish eain b. NJ ara insantof OF do
cosssef
On behali 81 Psais.-or MRS. 4 was maintained that
there ssrs tao distract general classes Of paients
fsra Where a. invsuios has accomplished result.
saisis nrU b any means Whatsoever. his patent may
secure 10 hH lhai result vel MS 81 arriving
Al a. The rssal IN such "a. IN truth. the iBven
tios and q another person sep in and By other
means. Arrse Al the re.ait. be may deprive the
ofigaal and more menioFioas invsuior Of the entire
,ehets Of BIO aiy shl labor The she more Likely
TO baI4sn from ths NOTORIOUS fact. that the best system
Of machinery 10 accomplish svea resali seldom de-
vise4 snl Il the result eoaa not be secured by
patent the original inyeaiot wosA almost every case
be deprived Of all benefit from his invention by those
who have other merit but that OF devising some in.
provement in has machinery
Secondly The second general class Of patents is for
modes OF arriving Old results Ia which the result
forms no par, OF the invention In such patents
for machinery only, for other processes for arriving
at results already well known and whoever nvenis
new and improved process may take out paten, for IT,
and suersee all prior patents for machinery processes
conducive To the same result
Morses patents embrace both tie result and the process
both being entirely and although other per may
invent and patent improved processes machinery they
cannot them during the existence of Morse's patent
to produce the result BY he potoer, without
license from Professor Morse his assigns.
On the other hand il was maintained that results
not paen,abe, directly ndrecny AMI that all patents,
to be valid must be for processes machinery only
Very numerous authorities both American and British
were adduced on both sides their respective
positions.
The injunction granted upon the express ground that
Morse patents coper tie result peA the process and
are nevertheless valid. The following passage from
letter dated Frankfort Kentucky the 18th instant.
hbits the length and breadth OF the decision, by giving
an extract from the injunction actually issued. viz
"The injunction bond and bond for costs, in the of
Morse et al u.s. oRsyet al, both executed, and the
subppna and injunction in the hands of the marshal
think Injunction is broad enough to attempt
at evasion which their ingenuity After spec
tying against OF the Columbian instrument parcn
ary the injunction says 'Or other Telegraph rorked BY
the motre poscer Of and eowsi~g Of
bned circuits Of teefrty connected BY ,rhat called bv the
com painants The RECEIVER, aud by you, The defendant, the
uuraToR and the register ,corked by dscfro
rhoe or in part or ia any combination tcatepe thia
in rtoafion Of the ercsps rights here d1omnsd, granted
BIZ the Lsisrs patent the complainant Samuel b. Morse
una the further order Of s court, until The .g,t Of this
I'M JUNCTION shall hare eIyued'"