The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-10-22
HISTORY OF TELEPHONES.
The Invention and Legal Decisions
Relative to the Patent Right.
By Whom and Under What Conditions the
System Is Operated and Controlled
in This Country.

the present nOnOpOly was uOW s66luS lIs oosO
days financially, and it would be no great while
before its rapacity would be curbed by rivals
and the public would get as good or better serv-
ice at half the present rate '"rhe litigation al
ready begun is but the beginning of the end"
said Mr. Jacobs 81 have kept myself thorough
ly Informed on the law points from the first, and
am much interested in the various legal phases
that the question of priority in the invention
has assumed"
"Tell me what they are" said the reporter,
whipping out his notebook.
"To begin at the beginning" said Mr.. Jacobs,
''the right of the present managers of the Amer
lean Bell Telephone Company, which, with Its
associates, controls the entire telephone system
of the country, rests upon two fundamental pat
EMS granted to Alexander Graham Bell, of Sa-
lem, Mass. His first application for a patent
was made Nov. ii, 1876, and the patent No.
174,465 was issued on March 7, 1877. He called
it an improvement in telegraphy, and the sub
stance of his claim was thatit the method
of and apparatus for transmitting vocal or other
sounds Geographically by producing electric I'M
dulations by a continuous voltaic current On
the 9Th of January, 1877, he filed an appca-
ton for second patent for what he called an
improvement. in electric teegraphy. This pat
emit embracing eight claims, was issued Jan. 30,
2 1s77-Only fifteen days after the filing, an I'M
usually quick action on the part of the Office
THE FIRST PATENTS.
"In this he claimed diaphragm, which, being
thrown into vibration, electric currents were
caused to circulate on the line corresponding in
Eumber and intensity with the vibrations on the
diaphragm, and these vibrations of the current
produced similar vibrations on the other end of
the line, so that what was spoken at end of
the line could be heard at the other in the same
tone of voice in which it was spoken. Elisha
A nd q
appear to have heen at work about the same
time and number of patents issued for
inventions relating to the telephone. Some time
afterward, by a consolidation of interests IN
some way, the American Bell Telephone Com
Tany and its associates secured control of all
these principal patents and formed the cOmbna-
which is now reaping so rich harvest
from the needs of the people
suit in the United States Circuit Court at Boston
against q telephone company for operating I'M
der other devices, for Infringement Among the
defenses set up that in the first patent of
Bell the instruments represented in his draw
ings would not transmit articuate speech at all,
and that that great result had been reached en-
tirely through the improvements described in
the second patent to Bell The Importance of
this point was that if Bell had not completed his
method and put it in working form when he
took his first patent it had become.pnblic prop
-erty, even If Bell had invented it, for in his sec
Ond patent he made no broad claim to the method
or the process of transmitting articulate speech
by electric current but only claimed certain i'm
provements upon such a process. The defend
ants claimed that these improvements they had
not been using at all, but had used other devices
different from Bells, invented by other parties.
They also set up that the telephone itself was
old, and not the invention OF Bell.
THE TELEPHONE OF GERMAN ORIGIN
'"That in 1860 man by the name of Philip
Refs in Germany. conceived the idea and en-
bodied it in a practical telephone. There was
doubt that Refs used membrane and the
electric current for transmitting sounds, but it
could not transmit them into articulate sounds
at the other end because a receiver like Bells
must have been used to gatherup the sound at
the other end before the instrument could be
practically used. AS the court said, it like
deaf and dumb person who could be taught to
speak but not to hear. The court held that the
fifth claim of the first patent valid and had
been infrnged. This comprised the method OF
and apparatus for transmitting vocal other
sounds Geographically by causing electrical
dulations In an electrical current similar to those
made upon the apparatus. The validity OF the
other claims of this patent, and the second pat
emf, were not passed upon IN this case. This de-
clsiOn was by Judge Lowell.
subsequently the American Bell Telephone
Company brought suit against Dolbear and
others in the same court. The case was heard
by Justice Gray, of the United States Supreme
Court, and Judge Lowell, and the court followed
the case previously cited, known as the Spencer
case, and held that Bell had discovered
art-that of transmitting speech by electricity,
and had right to hold the broadcast claim for
1t which could be permitted in any case, and
that the invention was nothing less than the
those which a sound has produced in the air.
That his patent, while not covering the abstract
principle without regard to means of traQsmt-
ting speech by electricity, yet was not limited to
particular form of apparatus but included the
process and method. The finding of the court
was that the defendants had ihfringed Bells
patent by using his general process. but said
they would not consider, as it was not neces-
sary fer the purposes of the case, whether Dol
bears apparatus was the equivalent OF Bells
whether 1t was an Improvement for which Dol
bear might have patent himself.
"You see" continued Mr.. Jacobs, "there are
some nice points left uncovered all along. Imay
say to you right here that recently company
has been organized in Boston to operate Dol
bears invention with a cash capital of 81 ,000,-
900 backing them. SO you see they think
there's something in it, There's another Rich
mond in the field company organized in New
York city known the Peoples Telephone
Company, and proceeds to manufacture and
onerate telephones, whereupOn it is sued in the
United States Court infringer OF Bells
patents. Their defense developed something
brand new. man was brought to light
& named Daniel Drawbaugh, who halls from The
mountain Businesses OF the interior of Pennsyl-
wanna. BY him the claim Is made that he made
and put into suucersful operation speaking
telephone upon substantially the same prnci-
pie as Bells long before Bell even applied for a
8 patent. Drawbaugh was on the stand six weeks
as witness, testified substantially as above
stated, described his telephone aud that he had
applied for patent thereon, which
pending This case has not yet been decided
UNSATISFACTORY DECISIONS.
"Despite the strong expression quoted from
the opinions of Judges Gray and Lowell. neither
inventors nor lawyers have been satisfied with
the results reached in these cases. The charac-
ter of the monopoly, whether consider the
rates charged and the quality of service fur
nished, as well as the immense moneyed inter
ests at stake and prospective prizes in the fu-
ture have kept the pot boiling furiously. The
latest case is that brought by the American Bell
Telephone Company against the Molecular Tele-
phone Company, of New York city The suit is
brought on the patents owned by the cCmbina-
ton including theBeIl, Gray and Edison pat
ents, claiming an infringement of these patents
by the defendants. The answer of the defend
ants was filed in September this year, and