Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1884-10-19

WILLIAM ". kER, GEORGE w. SMITH. Attor-
nsys ana Councillors al Law No. l26 south Sixth
PHILADELPHIA, October o. 1884.
G.. w. Palmer, Esq, Secretary NJ he clay
Southern Telephone Company:
Dear SIr,-your letter Of the Ith Instant has
seen banded 10 IN. BY tie General Manager " the
" Clay Commercial Telephone Company" with
The request that would answer IT, In your letter
yOu say that the Bell Company are Issuing etrca-
lars TO your subscribers and the azonts OF the Bell
eompany are calling upon your subscribers, warn
ing them ina, II they continue the use Of the Clay
Telephones the Rel Company will bring suit
against them for Infringing it, rights under she
two patents granted TO Alexander Graham Beli,
dated respectively March z, 1876, aud Janu; y
This mode OF warfare, which would be cons 'dere 1
by snv other person or company as undignided
aud dIsreputablc Is The mode which has always
characterized the Bell Company In ~ attempts
heretofore made 10 suppress.the use OF the latter,
more successful, and improved Instruments aud
methods which have lnterfered 10 such damaging
claimed by it. The same policy has invariably
beon pursued by The Bell Company In other elites.
not alone against ne cav company, ous cga,nst
titon has become formidable To IL She sole Object
being II possible. TO terrorlze the users Of superior
The Inconsistency Of tile course OF the Bell Com.
psny becomes apparent, when You reflect, SHAT "
The Bell Company could successfully maintain ,
snii against other companies for infringement OF
the kell patess. the more instruments used by the
company sued, tie more money tie Bell Company
would recover
The tnth Is, the Bell Company hes never SUI
cessfuliy maintained suit against any com oahy
fer infringement. where there vas q decisl0a upon
tie merits. IL bOastfully points to suits brought
assint three or four Clher com paniss, which we're
decided In its favor but these suits were NOS de-
cided upon the merits. became the cempsnies
sued we're either 700 poor 70 continue 20 pay the
eIpeDsss attending the suits. or they we're bought
ny bodily by tie Bell Company and jadgneni then
entered by agre9n0nt The suit brought by Tie
Rel COMPANY 10 What Il known a The Oraw6aush
case. lately argued . New York, and now awaiting
decision, Is one or importance " ths beii Com
psby. do sot know how that case VIII be do
eiced. Everybody who has watched tee case
knows how lI Ought 20 be deei dad Tor she prepOn-
derance oriesiimOny W favor OF Dr.vosush va.
overwhelming. You know, in that ease u is 4
question Of priority Of invention; the Dravbtlgh
people admit that their telephone II The ssms -
Bell's, but claim that Dravbauzh made and used u
some years before Bell obtained his oaient; over
100 people eorrob orstcd Drawbaugh. II she case
Is decided sgsins. Bell, that will be the end OF the
Ben Company's claim II the case !; decided
baugh was not the rrst TO invent the telephone
now used by the Bell Company. Were
little efec, upon Bell: claims against the other
companies. The broad claim made by The Bell
Company 10 that their patents cover all speaking
telephones, no matter now mechanically com
triyed. The Bell Company does nor claim that the
Clay telephones. or any of Tie other telephones
are mechanically eontriyed like the Bell, or IN
ifaf re- pert infringemsats upon their patents.
In the United states Court Tor the Eastern Dstcies
Of Pennsylvania. at Philadelphia, az tr full argu-
ment, q iew months ago. the court refused - grant
To the Bell Company an Injunction as prayed for
by them. TO restrain 4 competing company. The
Bell Company Las brought sut IN The SANE court
against The CLAW Company but. after the former
refasaI Of the court were AFRAID 10 ask for an To-
junction. knowing II would not be granted. Our
answer IN HAT SUI. has been nied, but as yea The
Esll Company has failed 10 proceed wl'h he case.
These ar . The last efforts made BY The Sell Com
many and the result shows shst tie eonrt refuse
10 recognize tie tights or presenslons claimed by
IL. What 70 has fNiled u accomplish Directly. 10
seeks 10 eject Indirectly. by threatening 70 bring
sui against individual sers, AMI BY notices. per
,onaIly or through the ne ssp..pcr.
agents from making these threats or giving these
nolicss. n II one Of the Incidents that unfor-
tunstely attaches 20 all patented ARTICLES. that
where several persons have patent, FOR the sams
arnele. although OF entirely different eonstYae
ren. and In no WV or manner infrinsements- ons
Of the parties may resort " The disrepaSzbis aa
dishs meet trick OF gvins notice that The se OF auy
OF tie otner articles win b an infrinsamens Of hi
pstsni thus friThten timid re pile or those mol
acquainted with the law relating TO such natter
from using his r.ssi's article.
The Only answer that remains TO he m zde II thai
the Clay Company IL carrying on ,ts businsss
Ps .sa s,ais. ,nas are presumed n IA" 10 - goo,
md valid, and which We believe and ailsse " 81
such In fact The Clay Company Is ready and
w,ilrg TO sppsar IN any sci. ne nsii Company .,
H. and IA ready 10 defend, assert, maintzin, ane
prove lis righ's. By lite agreeneat With yoar cor
my The hay Company rasr.a.ses :. ss.ams ,ns
you or your east mers, and W ave ven and then
harmless against al. aud all 81 Tins thar may D,
asks hat anv and every notice or claim OF VIVA.
eve- y IT which any OF IT'S customers msy recetvs
shall immediately he ssnt Q Ire once o. ne CON
Il snc iis counsel. thus r~llevns the customer
from al anne vance, risk. and liability.
vey truly X nSrrS;.i AZ w KEN
Attorney ior Clay Cominssciai fc.esho0s Goa
pay. oe t9-lt