Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-07-21
NO BLAME ATTACHES.
The Decision in the Patent Office
Scandal Case,
SEYMOUR'S OPINION.
Foster & Freeman and Ex-Com-
missioner of Patents Simonds
OF THE CHARGES.

The commissioner Of patents today rendered
decision in the matter of the charges pre-
ferred by Church l. Church against Foster 4
Freeman and dex-Commissioner Simonds. Messrs
Foster d Freeman are held to be without
fault or blame, and the charge Of collusion il
dismissed. The charges against ex-Commis-
sioner Simonds are also dismissed. The de-
cision covered nearly 5000 words and COM
prised an exhaustive review of the case
Commissioner Seymour, in his decision, says
that upon the complaint Of Church 4 Church,
attorneys-at-law, the defendants, Frank L.
Freeman, Charles E. Foster, attorneys, Joseph
L. Bennett, chief clerk Of the patent office, and
VIM. E. Simonds, the former commissioner OF
the patent office, are charged with wrongfully
taking in February and March Of this year
from the patent Office copies Of the files and
drawings Of certain live pending applications Of
Daniel Drawbaugh for claimed improvements
in telephony. The alleged wrong is set
forth in the complaint accomplished by col
lusion between all the defendants, and further,
that some or all Of the copies were taken by the
late commissioner, Mr.. Simonds, for use in his
practice as an attorney before this Office.
Grave Nature OF the Charges.
"The grave nature Of the charges and the
distinction and high character Of the defeu-
careful consideration Of the case and the close
scrutiny Of the evidence. 1t is necessary to
recur to the general principles upon which
the patent system rests to discover the true
limits OF the secrecy practiced respecting appli-
cations for claimed Inventions on file in this
Office and under what circumstances it may
lawfully be relaxed.
The true inventor may, IL he choose, with
hold from all others all knowledge Of his inven-
tion. The government holds out to this class
inducements to make full disclosure Of their
respective discoveries in that 1t undertakes to
secure to them for limited times the exclusive
right to their manufacture and sale.
The first prerequisite Of the reward thus
offered is the making and fling in this office Of
q full and candid description Of the claimed im-
provement, not, however, for publication in the
first place, but for criticism and investigation.
II the application Is found to have merit and
the invention not to have been anticipated the
reward is conferred by the issue Of the patent
based thereon. II the contrary conclusion is
reached by the Office the applicant takes nothing
for the revelation contained in his specification.
As to the Applicant.
"The question is whether the applicant in
such latter case has parted with his exclusive
dominion over his ideas, whether valuable or
otherwise. May he neglect his application and
be remitted to his former state? 1t was claimed
in argument that there is no law requiring pend
ing application for patent to be kept secret and
in litigation has a right to it. Whether one
can write paper describing his invention and
by depositing it in the patent Office rs part Of
a regular application place it where he him
self may not be compelled to produce it
when he becomes a party in court
is one thing, and with that question have no
concern in the decision Of this case. The cases
cited are all cases Of that character. In them
the parties could not maintain their standing in
court and withhold the admissions expressly or
by implication made in the applications which
they were asked to produce.
The Power of the ONCE.
"But the question in this case is Of . differ
ent character. May the patent Office itself,
upon the request Of . stranger to the proceed
ings and in the absence Of an interference con-
test in the office involving these papers,
properly divulge the contents of applications
either pending rejected or abandoned without
the consent of the respective applicants, in the
absence Of facts clearly showing abandon
ment Of the invention itself and not Of the ap-
plication merely, or special circumstances from
which abandonment Of the invention may be in
ferred?
II am clearly Of the opinion that it may not.
The patent Office is q repository Of merchant
able ideas susceptible Of piracy, and until the
patent issues. securing to the applicant
his exclusive privilege, the Office has no
right to treat the ideas conhded to 1t its own,
or as belonging to the public, unless the appli-
cant himself so treats them, or by implication
| or otherwise consents that they may be 80
| treated.
.In reaching decision in this case upon the
| special circumstances shown, 1t is not intended
| on the one hand to pass in review any Official
act Of the former commissioner of patents or
on the other to approve the official routine un-
der which copies were incon-
siderateIy furnished. I pass now
to the specific acts complained Of" At this
| point Mr.. Seymour reviews the charges made
| by Church i Church. He describes the efforts
Of Foster & Freeman to obtain copies Of GER
tain papers and states that the furnishing of
those copies were furnished upon the authority
| of the head Of the Office
| The Charges Dismissed.
"The fact that in all these cases written re-
| quests were regularly made and either expressly
granted by the commissioner or assistant COM
implication authorized by the commissioner
to be made and furnished, is the
sufficient answer to these charges upon the part
| Of Foster 4 Freeman, unless there is ground for
| holding that the action of the office itself was
obtained in some manner by collusion.
| at must be held that no charge against Fos-
! ter l. Freeman or against either Of them is
either in procuring the papers themselves for
| their clients, or In acting in any manner in col
lusion with others to obtain copies for any other
purpose.
"The complanants stated themselves that Mr..
| Foster was without fault blame in the prem
| ises and requested in formal manner that
the charges against him be dismissed. Upon
a careful consideration Of the testimony it
| is held also that DIR. Freeman is without blame
or fault in the premises. The charge Of collu-
| sion is dismissed"
| The charge against ex- Commissioner Simouds