Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1871-1872, 1872-04-25
THE CULTIvAToR WAR
Opinion of Judge Blodget.

The war Of the cultivator manufacturers,
which has been eliminating for some time,
has at last commenced. The Cultivator
Protective Association, headed BY Deere 4
Co., and Buford & Co., have hedged them
selves in by patents, extending back to the
primeyal ages when the first rude instru-
mens was made and called a cultivator, and
now propose that al others who make, sell
or use the article covered by any one of
these patents shall pay them royalty for
such privilege. This makes it interesting
to nearly every farmer in the country, as
well as interesting to the public on account
of the heavy sums Of money Involved pro
vided the plaintiffs are successful in their
claim. The FIRST step in the case is entitled
William f. Weir va. Reed 4 Co., of Mon
mouth, and came in the United States Cir
cunt Court in Chicago, on Tuesday, on q
motion to dissolve the injunction restraining
the defendants from manufacturing and sell
ing corn oultivators. Judge Blodget de-
livered the following opinion
The bill in this case was filed March q ,
aud notice served on the defendants that an
injunction would be applied for on the 10Th.
On that day the complainant came into
Court, and, no one appearing for defendants
the mi unclion was granted, as matter Of
course, and without any examination iuto
the merits OF the case. This application,
therefore, is TO be regarded substantially
as an original application for an injunction,
and shall consider it in that light.
The bill embraces six different patents,
now owned By the mpainants, and sll of
which is said to de eufringed by the defend
ants These patents are, most OF them
what's called combination patents, and
have all, except Two, been re-Issued dur
/ ing tho year 3s7l and with claims very DIFF
| fsrent from what was found in the original
patents. For the purposes Of this motion.
therefore, these patents must be considered
as dating from the time of their issue; and
as that time is 30 short, il cannot be sad
that there has been that long uninterrupted
possession By the complsinsuts, or that gen
ersl scQuiescence by the public, that the law
requires 10 such cases.
Neither has there been any prior sd udica
ton by any court as to the novelty OF the
invention, or as to the infringement by de
PENDANTS.
have purposely avoided any considera
ton Of the validity of these several patents
or of the question of infringement 10 th'
view l have taken Of he case, neither 0
those uestons is now material.
This case will probably come before mi
for fnAI hearing, and | have wished TO feel
) my mind, IS far as possible, free from a.
] bias in either direction. 1t may, then, sp
4 pear that, az to some OF the patents, the de
PENDANTS have iufringed aud that, rs t.
others, this is not the case. Several 0
% them, as ] have already observed, are CON
binstion patents, which, as a whole, may D
shown never to have before existed, thong
I other combinations, approximating more o
less closely thereto may, perhaps, be dia
covered.
Whatever dam age however, omplSinau!
may sustain by such infringement, they ca
recover on the fanl hearing. The defeuc
20 ants are understood to be amply reEpons
bic at the present time, and it would hardl
be right at this time TO restrain them by
preliminary injunction, when a license 10
is ell the complaints demand, and thai the
g can recover hereafter.
For the reasons above indicated, an
without any reference to the validity c
these patents, or the question of infringe
! ment, the INDUCTION must be dissolved.