New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-01-23
THE EDISON PEOPLE HAPPY
TALKS ON THE PATENT CASE DECISION
UNITED STATES ELECTRIC LIGHT MEN DO NOT
THINK 1T A GREAT BLOW TO THEM

Rate Rehdgerator Company case, deciding THAI the
American patent shall run for hneen years az
solutey, whether the Canadian patent Is hsps aNs'
for that term or Is permitted 10 iapse' -
Itor, ,a,a,,ar,. were received by the officers irom
numbers OF the happy shareholders and people III
erested in their great success Some members OF .ne
eompanv believe that this acknowledgment VI '"o
right of the Edison Company to the exclusive o"ns.
shin of the incandescent light creates properly
which would be equivalent to the sas-hghsiHo P'
leges OF the United States. When asked ~ f0s~'u
10 the matter by the reporter, Edward IL. JohnSoh'
president of the company, said the aecison ~ ny
49, nasa,or case by the Supreme Court Is tho
decision Of a point which has, up to date pro'eo On
impossible barrier to the progress Oh on. 49,
establish I'm the courts our exclusive rshe " '"o -,
candescent lamp AS the Bate case was aireaay upou
| ,hs surname Court calendar, we some tme sso
| erected an arrangement with tho ba'e COMPANY
,s.h a were 10 lend them the assistance OF our
orseI IN propery presenting the points in'oNeu Ia
.L o.eo before the Supreme Court. But on aocoun'
% the large number Of cases on the ooch1' VI "'
suprcme Court the Bate case itself wouio hot nav
| been reached for upward OF two or 1hlee years
overcome this delay, the Edison Company soughe snu
h,.ncd n subgttuton Of the Bate case ior ano'nof
ono near the head OF the docket. and about 70 De hes
The casa was argued for the appellants on JanuaY =
| . ara A Inv william NJ Evarts and Clarence seward.
vv were aso represented by Judge John Loweii, OF
| Roston. ex-Judgo Noah Davis and Richard ~ Dyer
counsel for the Edison Company. The case WIS
argued for the appcllees by Chauncey smith, Oh otoh,
r. r. Thurston, of Providence and g. H. Lothrop, =,
Dotrolt They were also represented Dy the oou"soi
| ~ the various electric-lght companies The po'np
decided IS one which is fareachng in its effect upon
nptent protected industries IN general and does not
I axcIusivelv amply 10 the cases named. lt Is QUO
| which will furthermore, very materially auecb tDe
| sdministratlon of tho Patent Office itself We have
ssn the following circular to the licensees and agents
| of the Edison Electric Light Company:
It gives us pleasure inform you that the oeeisou
=, tho sunreme Court Of the United States filed yes'er
dav IN the case OF the Refgerating Company Is In
fact decision In favor and obtained oy us upon '
question OF tho validity OF all our fundamental pSenS
naor which your licenses been granted we nave
now ony 10 prove fact Of Infringement IN oiool
soouro nrompt iniunctions against and damages from
,bose who have 80 long using with mpunity 'hae
which the highest authority now eonccaes 70 hSFe U'"
| our exclusive property from the beginning
| nNo serious effort will be made by any one 70 ueny
IN infringement which by Of the immunity Ie'1
has become so manifest and pronounced AZ 70 renoer
| fsctve defence now impacueabe ana aosuro A'
most gratifying result has been reached only W 'no "a
penditure OF great amount OF energy Ano no' ~, 80
ha best REPUTATION Of the charges OF apathy au "
30 confidence on our part often made by tina iningeS
| Of our patents.
TO LOOK AFTER INFRINGEMENTs
ave- held a meeting this afternoon conunuoo
/ ,,so. Tohrson % NJ the Patent Litigation Com
mttee Of which ex-Judge Noah Davis Is on"'ll.a'
| ana had a general conference as to the stoPS "H
| ve shall take Immediately TO press the many su''
| for infringement of the patents involved U, 'n,
decision, brought some time since IN 'no 80, 49,.
| courts against the Westinghouse sa"yoI'nian'
| rhomnson and Houston and United States Elee'rc
| TIgbtine Companies The Supreme Court having
| settlsd definitely the disputed point as 10 THESE
| patents being dead or alive, we have no" on1
| 10 prove infringement and try tho pa'cn's on mo,
| inertia And IN respect TO the quesuoh OF morn,
s,oh ,s simpIv as 10 whether tho Patent Office was
,ustIaed I'm granting the patents 10 Edison, We nave
the decision Of the courts Of Germany ana rnsAnu
avs times in his favor, against one adverse 40
clsIon. which latter Will doubtless DO reversed oy
tho Court OF Appeals 10 which IL has been 'aAon
The imperative conclusion from these decisions 10
that since the literature Of the art, as searched ny
The exports Of Europe, fails to disclose any anuci
nation OF Fdson's Inventions IL will disclose none
70 ,ho searoh OF the experts OF the United States
| therefore tho declson Of tho supreme Court Is 70
all intents and purposes decision that to him Dc
longs the exclusive right 70 an enjoyment OF the
industry OF incandescent electric hghting.'
AN OPINION AS TO ITS FAIRNESS.
r r. lombard. yice-presldent OF the company which
| uurchassd the phononaph and gaphophone patents
from Mr. Edison, which It was thought would also
suffer under recent decision Informed the reporter
that this was not the case. at Is decision' salo
Nr Tomhard which Is very fair 10 American in-
ventors was glad to soc II. We arc affected In one
nav only. the decision has made US stronger do
not see how the United states can limit patents here
nv foreign patents. We are however, injured IN no
wayp
Regarding this Mr. Edison says, In letter found In
another part Of the paper that all OF his phonopapn
naents including not only those Of recent date' Dut
also the fundamental patents which affected by this
decision NJ the Supreme Court covered by the con-
tracts OF sale aud purchase existing between Mr. LIP
p,ncott and himself and the other parties IN the
interest and that Mr. Lippincott provided In aa-
vance against the contingency which mas NO"
hsnnered by including in his contract OF purchase
not only more recent patents and future mNe""'N''
| but also the earlier and Fundamental patents
NOW THE OTHER SIDE FEELS.
ou,ho,s q, the United States Electric Light
con,n.ry who were interested IN the decision uld
not oem aownheared in the least by the teegrapmc
| orts erom washington. On the contrary, "nou
"a cnrts secretary of the company was asAeo
10 give his views, he SAID - con,n.n,, hos
al do not think that the Edison company hA'
creat cause for ubilaton AT the most inc ueeisiou
ON tho case affects only partially certain preins
orestions raised in the Edison suits ana uoeS nv
=, - nav relate TO the merits Of the cases. In some
=. e. su,ts. the defendants claimed, as pre-
,,narv defence that the patents had eSpieo peiois
no su,t was brought by reason OK sno eAp"".o "
; nIor sorsan patents of the same INVENTION onuo'
D ,ho r,,no Of the Bate case, as understand ~ ar
3 vS,.on,s natents arc sall limited by the foreign
nuO hwt not to such short terms There are
,, ,,o,. questions relstins to foreign patents %
be- disposed Of in these cases We arc iy prepared
70 proceed with these dciences at any sme ana Uu
oonmss, who have examined the maucr oaioiui .
80 advised us that these defences arc pofio'uy
rave Nu' ond must prevail In ono o.
d sOod "a ss sou suits on the patent for dynamo
tho EHS0r ro Of the broadcast and most
machines tSs Edison patents, we put in our proof
,So merits some two three years ago. and shovel
concusvey that the invention was IN use , long , 1'O
Mr.. Edison claimed to have msaS ross,,ada ,nsr
dropped and We have not been S0i' ~ D'''4' ''''
~ W. raised the foreign patent question as pre-
Il -, dofenee merely to avoid the trouble and ex
n,l'n =, long trial ON the merits, and the decision
y ,ro Rate case, so far it applied to any OF I'M
l. ~ "'o IT. a,mply enables the Edison COMPANY