New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-03-24
BELL CHARGED WITH FRAUD.
ABSTRACT OF SOLICITOR GOODIES BILL OF COM
PLANT.


PLAINT
l'he bill fled by the Government States that
the suit is brought by Correction Of john Goode Solc
tore neral United States and los Acting Attorney
eupr IL the Attorney General OF the United
States being under disability to prosecute tho same
ander Article Section OF the Constitution and the
acts OF Congress passed Hereunder which relate to
parents and copyrights 1t the duty of the applicant
for patent the bill declares TO make known fully to
the proper officers all matters within his knowledge re-
atng 70 his invention discovery and when he fails to
do is within the power, as well as the duty OF the
United States to take such action may be
necessary to cause the facts to be
brought to a far Investigation and de-
termination II the patent is found to be valid 1t is to
be sustained by the proper Judicial Judgments found
I'm whole or III part invalid it may be Cancelled in whole
or part which tie court mag deem to
vad The bill charges that certain letters patent IS
sued to A. q. Bell March T. 1876 (No. l7446j), and
on January 30, 1877 (No. 1S67s5). illegally and
improperly procured. 1t is claimed that Professor Bell
did not file full and proper description of the invention
for which received his first patent and that being at
the time unable TO transmit articuate speech by the
me Lod described he purposey framed ms application
in ambiguous aud general terms In order to cover
both anteceLent inventions and
to deceive and misead the examiners
OF the Patent ONCE and the public. His claim, 10 is al
legged. was for improvements in telegraphy," with
special reference recent application made by
The bill declares that Professor Bell did not in
clude or mention capacity OF his invention to trans
nit speech, that way he failed TO meet the
qurements of the law and also mis- ed aud deceived the
examining officers, who consequently neglected 10 make
any inquiry the transmission OF artlculate speech
by electricity Therefore, the bill declares the patent
being issued upon adeusve and ambiguous application
is null and void
Tho bill further charges that at the
time of filing his application Professor Bell not the
original Of all the improvements in tele6raphy
described and claimed in his application and that he
knew certain so-called improvements had been
previously used by Others. The case OF Philip Refs Is
presented length ANU 10 claimed that he invented
| an apparatus whereby speech could De transmitted.
Other Inventions also referred and particular
is laid upon the that on February H. $50
the day Professor Gray appeared al the Patent Olive
Elisha Gray filed cayeat IN which he declared that
he had invented instrument for transmitting vocal
sounds and conversation GEOGRAPHICALLY through an
electric circut' Prof ssOr Bells application, II Is
slated filed later IN tue day than Grays caveaL Ii
claimed that Bell and his attorneys uDlawfuy
obtained know edge or tue contents or Gray's
caveat aud the hour it was hled. and
that by collision with officials OF the Patent Oice
Gray was Induced to abandon his eayeat Thus thu art
Of telephony was monopozed by Bell Without proper
consideration OF the rights secured by Gray or the
Interests of citizens OF the United states. It is also
charged that on March TO- 1876 three days alter his
inst patent Issued To nm. Bell obtained for the
first time articulate speech by an electric speaking
Telephone Ths success IL Is Claimed, was not 90,
by any device or method described IN the Bell
specification patent because those incapable of
transmitting speech, but obtained with the quid
transmittor or water Telephone described In Grays
/ a
wrongful communication to MIN OF the contents of that
|
! Concerning the patent OF January 80, 1877, it is
claimed when Bell applied for 1t he well knew that
every material part, portion and device aud apparatus
forth therein MS invention, and that he
If. his claims tue face thereof to give
him aud his associates the practical monopoly
Of the broad art OF transmitting speech by electricity 1t
also claimed that THIS patent was osained by fraud
upon Professor Amos h. DoOear, knowledge OK his IN
venOn Of the telephone now used as receiver
by the American Telephone Company having been OBJ
tained by Bell from Perclval ID. Rlcnards. a friend OF
| DOlDear ana Bell.
The bill concludes with reasserton that Bell is not
the inventor of the instruments which he claims to
and operate through the American Bell Telephone
Company. aud it declares that the IeleDnOne being OF
great public Importance, the Bell Telephone
Company, In demanding large sums for the
OF 10 ephones depressing the people upon invalid
grounds. The asked 10 decree tnat the two
patents described be III all thn2s recalled repealed
and decreed null and that the record thereof
aud each OF them the exists and remains In the
Patent ONCE OF the Uuted states, in any OF the
the United states, be III all things eXpunged.
erased and obterated ETC. IL the patents are not To
be wholly repealed tue court asked to decide In what
part they void.