The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1884-03-06
A MONOPOLY BEATEN.
The Protected Barb-Wire litiga-
ton in Iowa.
Another Decision Against tho Wash
burn & Moen Company.
tKeokuk Dispatch.l


Judge McCrary rendered final DEGREES In
the two suits brought by tho washburn q
Moen Company against Walter and J. x.
Rhodes for the infringement respectively OF
the reissued Glidden and Kelley barbed wire
patents. The DEGREES In these two cases APP
ply TO eight Iowa suits in all, I'm which tho
same issues are involved. The decree on
the Glidden reissued patent declares II "a
invalid and OF no effect, because It
Is the same invention described In tho
original patent, and secured because the
claim OF the reissued patents was unawfully
expanded, and there undue delay In
applying for SAID reissue. oomplainants'
bill was therefore dismissed and defendants
have the right to recover their costs.
In the suit involving the Kelley pateDtit
was held that tho fourth claim OF th6fe-
| Issued patent was invalid for the same rea-
sons stated In the first case, and the court
found for the defendants upon the issue OF
infringement made I'm tho pleadings. Tho
same order was made concerning costs and
dismissal of the bill.
| The washburn & Moen representatives
say the next fight will be on the original
likely 70 be carried to the United States SUI
preme Court.
HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION.
Plain or unbarbed wire had been In quite gen.
eral use for fencing throughout the West for
some years before barbed wire began to be made
4 J.
as 1863 by Kelley and 1874 by Glidden. and others
not 80 well known. Between 1860 and 1876 there
were fully thirty different patents granted to
| various parties on barbed-wire fences But the
business was In It's infancy. Few realized what
| Il was to become in half-a-dozen years. One or
| these few was Mr. Washburn, OF Worcester. Mass.
| He conceived the idea oil buying up all the i'm
portant patents and making great monopoly.
In February. 1875. washburn & Moen obtained
! Kelley and Giiddcn patents. The reissuing was
! Ingenious. In this new form the patents oon-
tanned and claimed much more than the orig
malls. Under these reissues the Worcester frm
set up its o-callcd broad claim 1t held that
the patents gave 1t control OF the principle OF
barbed- wire fence, no matter by what device the
wire had been prepared. Having secured the
patents, having had them reissued with these
new and sweeping claims, the next step was TO
secure decision from the courts sustaining
years. Meanwhile the business had grown
enormously. Thriving wire factories had
grown up eyerywhere in the Western
States, competing with the large Eastern
establishments. The business was entirely tree.
Makers knew little about the patents, cared less.
and were not interfered with. Bn. WasnDnrn
1880, they gained their famous case in the United
States Circuit Court at Chicago. Judges Drum
mond and Blodgctt deciding that the re-issued
patents were valid and In full force.
The barb-wire business was brought TO short
halt by this decision. Every man in the coun-
try making, selling. or using barb-wire was
liable to suit for infringement, and manufactur-
ers we're liable to pay ruinous back royalties. In
this state OF affairs Mr.. Washburn and his attor-
neys summoned the principal manufacturers or
the country to meet them for a grand settle
! ment. They came together in Chicago In Feb
ruary, 1881, three months after the decision.
| Washburn was in position to dictate terms,
and each maker took tho best he could get.
About forty firms were licensed to continue
the business, each being limited as to the annual
tonnage of its output and each being assesseda
certain sum, larger or smaller. for back dam
ages. Mr. " ashburn and his licensees at this
same meeting fixed upon certain price for
xxrira undCYSeII
The price of wire to consumers was advanced by
the monopoly about $40 above the recent cur
rent price traising the wholesale price from
about6 cents 70 about cents per pound.
Washburn & Moens royalty was $50 per ,cn-
Small makers were not licensed, and were all
crushed out SHch, then. was the little monop-
oily which from February, 1881, to the present
time has added somewhat more than $io.Ooo.ooO
extra profit to the price of wire sold farmers In
half dozen Western and Northwestern = ates.
Iowa, being much the largest consumer, felt the
burden heaviest. The farmers OF that State
formed protective association. They set up
an establishment In Des Moines for making
"moonshne" wire, and prepared themselves to
fight the matter through the courts.
Meanwhile the Supreme Cour, Oh the United
nopoy by it's decision 0n'the subject OF reissued
patents in the celebrated case OF Miller vs. The
Bra,s Company" In this case a new and valua-
BILE doctrine was laid down. There had arisen
among a certain class OF Eastern capitalists a
very corrupt and pernicous practice In THIS
matter OF patents III this article or commodity
began to come into the markets., they had q
practice of ruminaging among old and aban-
doned patents until they found something in
some wise relating to the now popular COM
modify. or course this old patent could DO
bought up for song. They would then have 1t
"reissued" and so broadened aud strengthened
"a to make 1t valuable and to give them mo-
nopoNzing power over the commodity 1t was
to check this dangerous practice that the Su-
preme Court laid down I'm the case Of Miller VS..
The Brass Company" a set OF new and stringent
rules governing the reissue OF patents.
The new doctrine threw cloud over the Gid
den and Kelley barbed-wirc patents and the
Chicago Drummond- Blodgett decision. 1t gave
the Iowa farmers their basis for q case.
Under the countenance OF the Farmers
Association several ether "moonshining" faoto-
hes arose and grew like mushrooms into largo
business by their ability TO undersell the mo-
nopolists Washburn & Moon entered suits
and petitions against all these moonshiners.
Instead OF carrying the suits against tho farmers
through the courts the monopolists. 1t was
charged, bought up the Dcs Moines manufac-
turer, who was I'll agent for the Farmers Asso-
citation. The brunt OF the fight on the broad
claim" was borne by the Grinnefl Wfre Com
pany. A decision was made by United States
Judges McCrary, Love, and Treat In the Circuit
Court for the Southern District or Iowa In May.
1883, that the Kelley and Glidden rcissued pat
| 800 - .ra invalid This deciaOn has now been