The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-12-20
An INTERESTING LITIGATION
Etatus of the Suits to Test the Validity
of Professor Bells Patent.
Interest Felt in the 0utcome-Causes Which
Induced the Company to Assent to the
Advancement Of the Cases.
Inocia, - tba lndIananolis Jonrns,.

Speciai to the indianapolis JournsI.
WASHINGTON, Dec 19-Unusual interest at
4aches to the telephone suits which have been
advanced on the docket Of the Supreme Court of
che United States, and upon which, arguments
will begin on the oath OF January next. The
opening argument in these cases will for the
first time bring the question of the validity OF
the Bell patents before the highest tribunal in
Ahe land Although the government is not
party to those cases. they involve the general
question at issue-the validity of the Bell pat
ents--betwssa the American Bell Telephone
Company and It's dozen more opponents and
you'd be competitors. The government suit,
better known as the Pan-slectric suit, contains
no material point not included in these ad-
Vanced cases, although government counsel
slams that some Of them have been as
Ravorably presented as could have been.
The advanced cases consist of five appeals from
decisions Of the United States Circuit Courts,
favorable to the Bell company, in Massachu-
setts. New York and Pennsy lvania. These APP
peals to be argued as one case, are the Dolbear,
the Molecular. the Clay, the Peoples known as
the Drawbaugh), and the Overland and they
contain every substantial defense that has been
made to the Bell patent, and every word of evil
grounds upon which these appeals rest may be
briefly summarized as follows:
Flrst-The claim that the Rsis instrument
was perfect operative telephone, acting upon
the .nicrophonic principle, and. therefore, full
md complets anticipation Of the Bell patents.
Second--That the Rsis instrument while not
a perfect operative speaking telephone. yet was
1Ao IT,
Knitting, by electricity, musical tones at least.
and as such defining the state of the art and
therefore limiting Bells claim to the instrument
shown in the patent alone.
Third-That the instruments described In the
Sell patents are imperative, as speaking tsle-
phone. and that therefore his patent so far as 1t
b said to cover a telephone is void.
Fourth-That Bell got his patent by fraud and
that Ii is therefore void.
Fifth-That the principle sought to be covered
is not patentable, and that the patent therefore
be limited to the device shown.
Sixth-That the instruments made by Draw
baugh were in existence before March TO- 1876,
the date of Bells first patent, and were, there
fore, an anticipation.
Seventh-The Dolbear defense admits the va
iidity of the Bell patent. but claims that Dol
bears machine works on a different principle,
and therefore does not infringe.
All Of these appeal suits, except one are avail
able only against Bells first patent that of
March 10, 1876, and this patent might be broken
by the Supreme Court and yet Bells second
patent, of JAM 80, 1877, being sustained, the
field would still be closed against competition.
This second patent of Bells has never been
assaulted, and it being for simple forms
Of Instruments nearly all of which are
In universal use to-day, the field
of telephony, unless it can be broken would
still be covered by the Bell company. There is
one defense in these appeals, that of Draw
baugh, which. it is claimed. is a complete
swer to Bells second patent, and If the Supreme
Court should find that Drawbaugh's instruments,
which contain all the elements of Bells second
patent were in existence at the time claimed by
Drawbaugh, then both barriers may be broken
AowE, and competition left open to half dozen
patents. Some surprise has been expressed at
sire- wifhntnessvf the Bell company to consent
60 advance these cases. in some of which the de-
Tense is formidable. to be heard with the Dol
bear case. in which the defense is more doubtful
and which in the natural course of events would
be the only one TO come up on the
docket of the Supreme Court for argument
this year The other cases would probably not
have been reached for two or three years But,
on motion by appellants, which was consented to
by the Bell company, they were all advanced.
The explanation of the Bell company's consent
20 this is probably to be found in the fact that
the time this consent was given the government
suit to annul the Bell patent was threatened in
peoples the dangers of such q suit brought by
the government were manifest and the Bell
company probably consented to advance these
cases so that they might meet the government,
wherever begun, with a procrastinatng propo-
sition, by saying this whole question is
now before the Supreme Court of the
United States-the tribunal of last resort
whose decision will be a final determination of
the whole matter. But the government suit was
suddenly and unexpectedly thrown out of court
at Columbus, o., for want of jurisdiction and
now hangs in limbo completely overshadowed,
for the time being at least, by the coming
test next month in the Supreme Court. The Bell
company will be ably defended by j. ]. Storrow,
of Boston. and e. N. Dickerson, of New York,
attorneys, who, for years, have thought, and
argued, and worked for their corporate
Client rarely suffering defeat in the numer-
Gus actions that have been brought against the
Bell company in inferior courts, while Senator
Edmunds, Wheeler H. Peckham and Grosvenor
p. Lowry, of New York. Frman Shepard, of
Philadelphia; Lysander Hill, of Chicago; Don
II. Dickinson, of Detroit, and Cousten. Browne
Is Wynadier, of Boston, will advocate the
rights of the appellants With such formid-
able array of counsel, furnishing weghty argu-
meat pro and con, with such immense interest
at stake, and with intricate patent laws, con-
hictiug testimony, and numerous decisions of
inferior courts, all before them. and all bearing
upon the subject, the prospect is good for placing
before the bench of the Supreme Court of the
land one of the most kinky and perplexing dis
putes ever settled there.