The Petroleum Centre daily record. [volume] (Petroleum Center, Pa.) 1868-1873, 1872-03-29
OPINION OF JUDGE GR1ER

As write with difficulty can only state the con
illusions to which my mind has come after careful
examination of this case.
The Complainant has exhibited a patent dated
25th OF April, 1850. This is prnia iacie evidence
good title, and puts on the respondents the bur
dsn of proof thai the patent is void worthless.
need not repeat my remarks i'll the case of Good
year vs; Day u Wall,C. c. Rep 2s9.) but now
adopt them aiiording rule OF decision Which ap.
plies clearly to the present case.
As the infringement of the patent Is admitted,
the only question viii be as TO the validity of com
piainants patent of April 25 1858.
Il was after speculation hadbcen reduced TO
practice" and after repeated experiments that tn
complainant succeeded in over coming the prejudice
and igrurance OF the people on the subject, and
persuadins the public tlat his invention was uscfu
after he mad established it's great utility and vaus
sud when his genius and patient perseverance,, in
spite o. sneers aud scofs,' were completely sue
se.siul, that Reed, who had before made expert
Inents on tine same subject and was unsuccessful,
and after burchasing one ur more complainant tor
peioes, he applied on the lst Of November, 1867,
FOR pa,eut for substantially the same combna'
tons OF devices and machine contained in complain
ants patent; On the 18th Of the sauie month the
respondents forined thense Ives into a company or
cor Grafton called 81 The lterd Torpedo Company,
fr the purpose Of pirating the Complainant in
vcntiOn. and supporting the expensee OF tigatUu,-
and thus defraud him OF the fruits. They have per-
cived. even after the prelimary Injunction very
properly granted by te district Judge:
Let a degree be entered for comi lainar for per-
petual injun ction; anu Master appoine to take
an account accoi dinsiy TO the payer OF the;bill.
R. c. GRIEK, Judge.
NorE,-The passage referred to bv Judge Grier in
his former decision, Wallace, p. 299 adopted as
app icabe to this was as follows:
ut Is usually the case, when any valuable discov.
ny ls made, or any new machine OF great uli y IL
Invented, that theatenton of the public has beer
sarncd to that subject previously, and that many
persons have been making researches and experi-
ments. Philosophers and mecliancians may have
In some measure anticipated in their sp-culations
sle possibility Or PROBABILITY of such discovery or
Invention; many experiments have been successful
~ tiled, coming Very pear. yet falling short OF the
cesred result. They have produced nothing benc.
neal The Invention when perfected may truly he
Said to be the eliminating point OF many expert
men 3, not only by the inventor. hut by many 9th.
Ors tie may nave prOited indirectly by the Insuc-
ceSslui experiments and failures of others, but 1t
gives them no right to ca N share OF the honor oil
LAe profit OF the successful inventor Ii is when
speCulaton has Decn rsduced to practice, when
pertinent fa- resulted i'll discovery and when that
discovery has been perfected by patient ana contin.
Tel experiments, when some new compound, art
rlnnulicture. or machine has been thus produced
which 10 useful 10 the public that the party making
sopomes apubic benriactOr and entitled ia patent
"And yet wien genius and parieut perseverance
have at length succeeded, in spite of sn.els and
SCOTS, some valuable Invention Or discoer how
seldom is IL followed by reward Envy robs hin,
OF the honor, whle speculatoIs, swnde. s, and pi-
rates rob him of the profits. Every unsuccessful
sxperiniener who did or did or do not come very
near making discovery claims it. Every one
VINO can invent an Improvement vary its form,
claims right to pirate the original discovery We
need not summons Morse, or Blanchard, Wood
worth to prove that this Is the sua history of eve
ry great discovery or invention.
"The Present case auds "rother chapter to this
ports p. ~