Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-10-06
THE CASE DISMISSED.
Westinghouse Worsted in His Suit
Against Edison, the Wizard.
JUSTICE BRADLEY'S OPINION.
Pittsburg and Western Thieves Sentenced
in the Criminal Court.
OTHER GENERAL NEWS OF THE COURTS

The decision of Justice Bradley, of the
United States Supreme Court, in the suit Of
the Westinghouse Electric Light Company
VS. the MeKeesport Electric Light Company,
or Edison's interest, was yesterday received
by Clerk Gamble of the District Court.
The case, it may be remembered, was argued
here last spring, since which time Justice
Bradley has been occupied In ormulatng
his opinion, which covers six pages OF legal
cap.
The result of the decision leaves the
Westinghouse Company where 1t was prior
to the suit. While losing its suit, for the
bill was dismissed, it neither gains nor loses
by the proceedings excepting that had IT
won, it could have materially altered the
commercial standing OF the Edison Com
pany. The effect of the decision is that any
one can now go into the business of making
electric lamps, subject, of course, to the
payment OF royalties on their manner OF
treating the carbon ilaments, 10 the West
inghouse people.
HISTORY OF THE CASE.
The bill, decision on which has just been rem
dered, was for the alleged infringement of a
patent filed December, 1857. and the date of the
alleged infringed patent is May II, 1885, and is
vital point in the suit was whether the patent
sued on was valid, so far as il involved gen.
eral claim for the use of incandescent carbon
conductors made of fbrous or textile substan-
ces, ana the Court decided that it was not, and
so the bill was dismissed. The idea of patent
on the form of the glass lamp was dismissed
because it had been in pse in electric lighting
since lSz5
Justice Bradley went very fully into the his
tory of patents dealing with the various forms
of electric lighting and of carbon conductors
from their earliest use. He gave as his opinion
that neither Sawyer and Mann nor Edlson can
maintain any just claim to the exclusive use OF
charcoal generally, in any form, as an mean
descent conductor in an electric lamp. This
view of the question is sufficient to decide the
case against the complainants."
The opinion further states on an examination
of the original application of Sawyer and Mann,
it shows decided difference to their amended
application, which was made after Edison's in
vention has been published to the world.
A SPECIAL CLAIM INSERTED.
The last CLAIM of the original application was
for an illuminating arc of carbonized fiber, but
a special clause was inserted for the arched
form of the conductor. more importance being
attached to it than to the materials Of which it
was composed. But in the amended applica-
tion complete change of base was made, the
plaintiffs claiming that their Improvements re-
lated especially to the incandescent conductor
The arc was everything, and changes were
simply rung Oh it. Sawyer and Mann were
unaware OF the 1acI tnat tne arc was not new.
and were under the impression they could OBJ
tain their patent On learning, however, that
such was not the case, they changed about and
made the-cOnducting material the particular
object.
The opinion further says: 1--WE are not at all
satisfied that Sawyer and Mann ever made and
reduced to practical operations any such in
vention as is set forth and claimed in the patent
in suit. These principal experiments we're
made in 1873, and perhaps in the beginning of
1879. The evidence of what they accomplished
in the construction OF electric lamps is so con-
Trajectory and suspicious that we can with diff
ficulty give credence to the conclusions sought
TO be drawn from it. We are not satisfied that
they ever produced an electric lamp with
burner of carbon made from a fbrous material,
OF any material, which was a success"