The Petroleum Centre daily record. [volume] (Petroleum Center, Pa.) 1868-1873, 1872-04-10
OPINION OF JUDGE GREER

A1 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 q patent dated
2oth Of April, ISIS. This is prira face evidence OF
q good title, and puts on the respondents the bur
den of proof that the patent Is void or worthless.
need not repeat my remarks in the case Of Good.
year vs.; Day IL Wall, G. C.. Rep; 2a9,) but now
adopt them as aiording rule OF decision which ap
plies clearly to the present case.
As the infringement of the patent Is admit ted,
the only question will be as to the validity of
plainants patent Of April IS, 185S.
Il was after speculation had been reduced to
practice" and after repeated experiments. that tn
complainant succeeded in over coming the prejudice
and ignorance OF the people on the subject, and
persuauiIg the public that his invention was usefu
after he had established its great utility and valns
and "when his genius and patient perseverance, in
spite OF sneerS and scoffs" were completely sue
sessful, that Reed, who had before made expert
ment; ON the same subject, and was unsuc ceestul
and after purchasing one or more complanaut's tor
pedoss, he applied on the LIST of November 1867,
for patent for substantially the same combina-
tons Of devices and machine aimed in complain;
ants patent; On the 18th Of the same month the
respondents formed themse Ives into a company or
cor roration called ''Ihe Reed Torpedo Company,
fUr the purpose of pirating the Complainant in
ventOn, aud supporting the expensee of lit gation.
and thus defraud him Of the fruits. They have per-
served, even after the prelimary injunction very
properly granted by tie district Judge:
Let degree be enternd for conn lainspt for per-
pstual injunction; and Master, appointe to take
>" .crount accordingly TO- the payer of theibill.
--s.2t 49, n. y. Glt1Eh, Judge.
.NorE.-The passage referred to by Judge Grier in
his former decision, Wallace, p. 800, adopted as
applicable to this case was as follows:
1T Is usually the case, when any valuable discov-
cry Is made, or any new machine of great utility Is
invented that the attention of the public has been
turned to that subject previously, and that many
persons nave been making researches and expert.
ments philosophers and mlechanicians may have
In some measure anticipated In their specuations
sae possibility or probability of such discovery or
inventions many experiments have been successful
~ tiled coming very near. yet falling short of the
desired result. They have produced nothing bene-
hcai. The invention when perfected may truly he
Said to be the eliminating point of many expert.
mems, not only by the inventor. but by MANY 9th.
ors tie may have prOfited indirectly by the insuc-
cessful experiments and failures of others, but it
gives Them no right to claim share oEthe henor of
the profit of the successful inventor 1t is when
speculation has been reduced to practice when ex.
pertinent mas resulted In discovery. and when that
discovery has been perfected by patient ana contin-
ued experiments, when some new compound, art
manufacture, or machine has been thus produced
which Is usefulto the public, that the party making il
betoines apublc beneflctOr and entitled to natent
"And yet wien genius and patient perseverance,
have ut length succeeded, In spite of sneers and
hcons, some valuable invention or Discovery how
seldom is il followed by reward Envy robs him
sf tine honor, while speculatois swlndlers. and nj
rates rob him of the profits. Every unsuccessful
expsrlmenter who did or did or did not come very
near making u discovery now claims it, Every ona
VINO cali invent an Improvement vary its FORM
claims right to pirate the original discovery. We
need not summons Morse, or Blanchard, or Wood
ry great discovery or invention.
"The present case aods another chapter to this
long ana uniform history."-2 Wallace, Z. . Re
ports p ~