The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-03-20
THE TELEPHONE CASES.
Validity ofthe Bell Patent Affirmed by the
Supreme Court


United States Supreme Court room was crowd
ed to-day when court assembled at room, and
large number of people were turned away from
the doors. Alex. Melville Bell and Mr.. Storrow,
of counsel for the Bell company, were present,
as also the Commissioner of Patents, sew
eral patent attorneys and large number ot
persons directly or indirectly interested in the
telephone stocks. AZ five minutes past IL Mr.
Justice Blatchford, acting for Chief justice
Waite. began reading the opinion in the tee-
phone cases. The opinion was prepared by the
Chief Justice, but owing to indisposition, he did
not feel able TO read it. and requested MIR.
Justice Blatchford to do sc for him. The cases
covered by the decision of she court are six in
number-one of them coming from Massachu-
sstis one from Pennsylvania and four from
New York. In the first five cases the appel
lants are Amos f. Dolbear ct al; the Molecular
Telephone Company; the Clay Commercial Tel
ephone Company; the Peoples Telephone Com
pany and the Overland Telephone Company;
in the sixth the Bell Telephone Company is the
appellant against the Molecular Telephone Com
pany.
The Chief-justice began his opinion with re-
view of the question raised to the scope OK
the fifth clause of Bells patent of March z 1875;
that is, whether the patent for an art or
process of transmitting articulate speech. or
merely for apparatus by which that obiecr
could be attained. The court is of opinion upon
this point that articulate speech is one of the
vocal or other sounds" referred TO In the fifth
claim of the patent; Bell discovered that speech
could be transmitted by gradually changing the
intensity of continuous electric current so as to
make IL correspond exactly to the changes in the
dens ty of the air caused by the sound Of the
hic at Pc ar;s
way in which these changes of intensity could
be made in speech actually transmitted. Thus
his art was put in condition for practical use.
In doing this, both discovery apd invention. in
the popular sense of those terms. were involved
discovery in finding the art and invention
in devising the. of making il
useful. For such discoveries and such
inventions the law had given the
discoverer and the inventor the right to a
patent-as discoverer, for the useful art. process
method of doing thing he has found. and as
inventor, for the means he has devised to make
his discovery of actual value. Bell was the
first dscoverer of the process of transmitting
articulate speech by changing the intensity Of
continuous current as to make IL correspond
with changes in the density of the air produced
by the voice, and with this he astonished the
scientific world. Professor Henry, one OF the
spoke of it 1.-The greatest marvel hitherto
achieved by the telegraph" A patent for such
discovery is ncs 10 be confined TO the mere
means which the Giscoverer improvsed TO prove
the reality of his conception. The is,
therefore, of the opinion that the patent must
be sustsined as patent for PROCESS arr.
y The Chiet-j justice then considered the alleged
anticipation of Bells discovery by Phillip Refs,
and SAID that Reis never succeeded ID actually
transmitting speech, and that it was therefere
impossible to hold that what he did was
ticipation of the discovery of Bell.
After reviewing briefly the claims of DR. Van.
derweyde, James W. McDonough and Cromwell
f. Varley, and showing that these claims have
no bearing upon the validity of BelIs patentsf
the Chief-jus took the of Daniel
Draw baueh. of Pennsylvania and reviewed il at
great length. In the courts opinion, the effect
Of the dispositions taken to show that Draw
baugh succeeded IN using instruments which an.
tedated those of Bell has been completely ove-
come by the conduct of Draw baugh. about
which there 10 dispute, from the time of his
visit to the Philadelphia centennial until he was
Telephone Company, nearly four year
afterwards. to contest the claims OF
Bell. He silent so far ths
general public were concerned, when, If he had
really done what these witnesses think he
did, he wonld most certainly have spoken.
There is hardly single act of his in connection
with his present claim. from the time he heardr
before going to Philadelphia, that some one else
had invented telephone which exbibi.
tion at the centennial that is not entirely incon-
sistent with the idea, even then of complets
discovery or invention by himself, which could
be put to any practical value. The news Of
Bells inventious spread rapidly and at once, and
it took but few months to demonstrate TO the
world that he had achieved brilliant success.
If it were known at Eoerly's Mills alone that
Drawbaugh had been doing tue same thing for
years in his shop there-and it certainly would
have been known all through the little village il
it had actually been done-no one can believe
that the public would have been kept in
ignorance of it until four years after
forwards. when a special telegram from
Washington to the Cincinnati Commercial an
nounced telephone combination ito have entire
charge of the telephones not only In this coun-
try but in the world that could transmit caes-
eages s'fOr almost song" To minds, the
result of the experiments made with the Draw
baugh instruments conelusiveiy showed that
they could not have done what the witness sup
posed they did, and that what they saw and
heard was produeed by some other means than
an electric speaking telephone, We decide that
Drawbanghs defense has not been made out.
The Chief justice then took up the charge OF
fraud and colluslon In the Patent Office, by
means of which Bell, it is alleged, obtained sur
Information with regard TO the inveE-
tons of his rivals and then amended his own
specifications Upon this point the court says:
''We entertain no doubt Whatever that the
specification now found ia the patent. Ia
precisely the same as that one on which the
order to issue the patent made, aud tha
fair copy which is now found the files of the
Office is precisely il was when the order foe
the patent was granted. Not shadow of sus-
picion eau rest any one growing out OF the
nisprGt OF the SPECIFICATION in the Dowd case.s
The Chief Justice then reviewed briefly the
case of the Bell Telephone Company against the
Telephone Company which involves
one of the claims Of the patent issued TO Bell on
Jan 3d. 1877 The court below held thai
the fifth claim Of this patent was anticipated by
the Schelen magnet. Bells patent. the court
holds, was not for the magnet, hut for the tee-
phou4 of which at formed part To that ex.
tent tho 3acree in that erroneous. IL
follows that the decree each of the cases. so
far as il IL favor of the 8en company, and
those elaiaiEg uLder il. must be affirmed. and that
the derree ia tho Molecular case. 10 far ii is
r@<& 49, . kA fYrll Mtnff nE 8hA
patent OK Jan 30. 1877 must be reversed
and decree directed TO that extent inA its favor.
II is ordered.
Justices Bradley, Field and Harlan dsserted.
Their dissent il based upon the Drawbaugh
claim and they are OF opinion thar the evidence
shows that Deawhaush was the
first Inventor of the speaking teleuhone. al.
though he was unconscious Of IL. aud Was noA