Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1873-11-24
TWENTY MILLIONS AT STAKE.

Inc attempt OF Joseph t. Woodbury.
to settle down like a vampire on the plan
ing mill owners, lumber merchants
and others, and the united action of
these parties to resist his claims, will
doubtless make one of the most gigantic
legal battles of the century. The coun-
sci for the defence are Hon. Caleb Cush-
ing, Hon. VIM. NJ. Everts. Hon. B. r.
Curtis, Hon. Edwards Pierrepont and
John T. Drew, ESQ.
Mr.. Woodbury. has sent out a pam
phlet in which he sets forth his claims,
and says the law in relation to his pa
tent has been fully decided by the Su-
preme Court of the United States, and
then to prove his statement, puts in the
following:
THE decision made in May, 1872, by
the Supreme Court of the United State,
in the case of the Dental Vulcanite Com
pany as Gardner, was to the effect that
lapse q time and public use betaoeesa the
filing Of the original and aOithdrawn APP
pltcatiom, and the filing ofa re'ees0ed APP
plicatiop does not a0or,k abandonment
We are informed that the case, above
referred to, was not and never will be
decided by the Supreme Court of the
United States, having been struck from
the docket by order of the court on ac-
count of fraud and collision. The plain
tifs had arranged to pay all expenses of
the defendant, who was simply hired by
them to defend suit in manner to give
them the moral support of decision in
the court, by which they could the east
er levy royalty upon others using dental
vulcanite.
In regard to Woodbury's patent the
Scientific american says:
among the most memorable litiga-
lions that ever took place in this coun-
try in connection with patents, were
those pertaining to the Woodwork Plan
ing Machine, originally patented by
William Woodwork, December 81, 1928,
for the term of fourteen years, and twice
extended by Congress, for fourteen ad-
ditional years. The monopoly became
so burdensome and oppressive that the
legislatures of various States passed res
olutions imploring Congress to grant NJ
further extensions. and it finally expir.
ed in 1866, after an existence of twenty
eight years.
Woodworth's device was an improve
ment on Hills machine, which was de
fective in that it did not reduce tn
boards to a uniform thickness. Wood
worth arranged the cutting cylinde
above the bed and in connection there
with used yielding pressure rollers t
hold the boards in proper position. H
thus obtained new and important re
suit, to wit, the production of plane,
lumber of uniform thickness. This CAV
him the almost exclusive monopoly o
mechanical planning, from which he 0
his assignees realized great wealth
Many attemps were made to break dow
his patents, but they usually failed. 4
great variety of devices were brough
forward designed to evade the claim G
Woodwork to the yielding pressur
roller. In some of these, the pressur
was applied upon the edges of the boar
by weights; in others by springs upo
the face of the board; in others by iro
bars resting upon the boards and presse
down by springs. But the courts hel
that all these devices were infringement
producing substantially the same result
as Woodworth's rollers and were there
fore not substantial departures from h
continuance.
When the Woodbury. monopoly expi
ed, the lumber interests received gre;
impetus. Manufacturers were free
from the great tax, and the number
planning machines rapidly increases
The dealers little thought that, after Il
lapse of seventeen years from the expi
alton of the great original monopoly, /;
attempt would be made, under color
, law, to saddle another and even great
monopoly upon them. But we are sorl
to say that this was the fact.
In 1913, Joseph P. Woodbury. a
piled for patent for an improveme
in planning machines, in which he us
yielding pressure bar instead of Woo
worth's yielding pressure roller. Lo
Woodworth's roller so that it will n
turn, and we have, substantially, Woo
bury's pressure bar. Long prior
1913, the courts had decided that t
use Of yielding pressure bars were i
fragments on Woodworth's yieldil
pressure rollers and therefore, viii
Woodbury's patent might have been ut
and patentable, he could not have us
his device, had the patent then been
lowed. But the Patent Office decid
that there was not sufficient novelty
Woodbury's device to support a patel
}, and accordingly rejected his claim. T
e applicant then withdrew his petite
o and received back his money. AS
J. could not obtain patent, everybo
y who made planning machines had Fl
t. right to use his device, and they