Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1873-10-03
Resistance TO Extortlon.

The lumber merchants, planing-mill
owners, manufacturers of planning machines,
boxes, ETC., met by delegates at Albany, n.
l.. Sept. 2ith. 1873, for the purpose of tax
ing action on the question of resistance to
the extortionate demands of Joseph p.
Woodbury., who has obtained in some mys-
ferrous way patent for " yielding pressure
bars and rotary cutter" though we are in
formed that substantially the same thing
was in common use for more than twenty
five years prior to the date Of Mr. Wood
bury's patent. We understand the !acts in
regard to this patent to be substantially as
follows:
The patentee (Joseph p. W oodbury) first
fled his claims for Invention of g a yielding
pressure bar" and "rotdry cutter and
" combination Of solid bed and rotary cutter
snd yielding pressure bar" June Sd, 1913
This claim was rejected by the examiner
cfpaten;s for the following reasons:
l. Because all that was novel in the in
vention had been fully described and claim
ed by p. Brown in his patent granted Oct
4th, 1915; by W. II. Burnett, January g,
1889; and also fully described by Joseph
E. Andrews, whose rejected claim dates
July 81, lSiG
}. Because yielding pressure bars and ro-
tary cutters had been in common use prior
to Mr.. Woodbury's filing bis claims
After tho rejection of his application for
= patent he took no steps toward an appeal
snd his attorney withdrew the application
and the fee of SEQ For twenty-five years
it was supposed this claim had been aban-
doned to the public. At any rate, the de-
vice went into general use with the know
ledge and without the protest Of Mr. Wood
bury.
On the 9Th day Of December, 1870. twenty
two years after the filing Of the original
clam Of Woodbury., a new application wa.
made and again rejected. The grounds Of
rejection Of this second application were
substantially the same As before. The
claimant was reminded that he had with
drawn his original claim more than seven
teen years prior to the second application,
ard that the invention had gone into com
mon use.
\ thru application was made January 10,
1873, and was rejected, bat subseq it
was granted in the face OF the well grounded
reasons for its rejection
There are thousands Of these machines
now in use and Mr. Woodbury. has made
extortionate demands for royalty upon all Of
them. The lumber merchants and manu-
facturcrs Of New York city. Brooklyn,
Boston, Chicago, Buffalo, Albany. Burling-
ton, Ogdcnsburg, Hartford and other
places, made n movement for combined ac-
ton to protect themselves; and all persons
who use planning machines with adjustable
or yielding bars and rotary cutters are
joining in this movement thus making,
most powerful organization formutual pro-
lection.
The mectingat Albany passed resolutions
to allow all other planing-mill owners.
wood-workers. and builders Of machines in
all parts of she United States to Join the
organization. and whenever any suit is
brought by Mr. Woodbury. against any one
in tae organization. to defend the case with
all the power Of the combination, and
jointly meet the expense Of suit. An execu-
tive committee fully authorized to take such
action as may be deemed advisable. was ap-
pointed, consisting of W L. Proctor.
0giensburg, y. Y, agent Of Skillings &
Whitney Brothers of Boston and Osdeas-
burg y. NJ. Jewctt, of Jewett & Pitcher.
Boston. W. n Greene Of Brousons, IVES
ton, Greene & Co., Burlington, Vt
The committee have employed as counsel
for the organization, Hon Caleb Gushing,
Hon. Edwards Pierrcpont, John T. Drew,
Esq. aud Henry C. Bliss, Esd, As solicitor.
BY thus joining together, the partie, in
terosted are able 10 employ an array Of
counsel that would not be within the means
Of separate firms. and in this way, with
small expense to each, all who join the
organization are sure Of a prompt. yisor- /
Gus and intelligent defence.
We understand that the counsel have |
carefully examined the merits of Wood |
bury's patent, and that they are Of opinion (
that it can be set aside and declared in
valid on the ground OF lack Of novelty, /
lack Of priority Of invention, and because /
whatever novelty or merit might prove to |
have originally been in the invention, it
had been abandoned TO the public.
The counsel have determined upon a line
of action that will give Mr. Woodbury.
ample opportunity to show the novelty,
utility, and priority Of his invention and
what rights he has in the premises, if he
sees fit to bring suit for royalty against
any one in the organization.
1t too often happens that patents are pro-
cured on things in common use, and Nor
pay a royalty rather than he haras~el by
suits, and thus the public Is wrongci.
Every inventor !, entitled to the fruits Of
his skill, but when 4 device that has been
in common Use for twenty-five years can
be patented, aud the public made to pay an
extra amount for what they have consider
ed their own property all that tine, we
think a united defence against such an I'M
just demand is good policy, and viii have
the support Of an enlightened public opin-