New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-04-25
THE ELECTRIC LIGHT CASE.
JUDGE HALLETT's RULING AT ST. LOUIS
THE FULL TEXT OF AN IMPORTANT DECISION
IN A PATENT SUIT.

Company, involving the incandesccnt lamp patent:
Complainant, aegc Infringement of Letters Patent
No. 2o3, sos, issued TO Thomas A. Edison January 81,
1850, for an improved electric lamp This patent
came under the consideration OF the Circuit Court
OF the southern District OF NewYork in the Of
Edison Electric Light Company vs.. L. ;. Electric
Lighting Company az Fed Rep. 4;i. and was held
to be for lamp consisting essentially OF fila.
mentary carbon burner. Theoretically sealed In glass
vacuum chamber 60 understood 1t Is the tncan.
descent lamp I'm common use and no question Is pre-
scented In this record TO the character OF respond
cns' manufacture. The defence 10 the bill and TO
the motion for preliminary Injunction now under con.
sderation Is want Of novelty In the Hiison patent
respondents aver that an incandescen lamp different
In form but In all essential features the
that now In general made rs early 1854
by Henry GOebel, Of New-York City. and that 1t
used by him In various ways and at different times
TO- many years thereafter. II Will not be- necessary
to describe this lamp at length, rs II has the
constituents as the Edison lamp. We are at present
more concerned with the struggle between the con-
| tending forces on the one side TO maintain and On
the other TO iisprove the existence and use OF the
lamp anterior to the date OF the Edison invention.
A large OF testimony IN the form OF atIidavits
Is offered by c?ch party the question OF fact.
Which to consider at length would be- a tresOme and
| unprC Etabe task.
The principal objection urged by complanants
against the Gocb.i invention Is that II has i'm
manner assigned to 1t the in.nd, lamp Is the
product OF several auxiliary not likely to fall
within the COMPASS OF single mind n al achieve
ment OF science the lamp is matter OF progress
| sive steps, of which must be made by the
world large before others car be taken by any
one. This is than 10 say that man
can ourun his competitors to any great length in
the ,feld Of scientific Investigation IA proposition
| which has no support IN experience.
There seems 10 be no reason for saying that Goebel
could reach in 1854 the point attained by Edison
In 1879, unless said By the dissenting Justices
in the telephone II is regarded incredible
| that great discovery should have been made
| by the plain mechanic and not by eminent
| scientist ana In, cntOr.'
| In far, however II may be shown that
| the methods adopted by Goebel not equal to
the results obtained, the evidence should receive tho
most careful consideration. On this point 1t appears
| that Goebel has recently made several lamps Of the
form and with the material and tools formerly used
| by him. These lamps were tested by men Of
| skill and experience I'm such matters and they were
| found to be- reasonably effective. They are not 50
good as the lamp, in cOrnmon ase, but they can be
| operated and they give reasonable service in time
and capacity OF light. so that in this way we have
prlma face proof Of GoeLels ability to make lamps
| in the way he claims to have made them before
| the time Of Edisons invention.
| at is said that Goebel Is involved In contradc-
| tIons and Measurements Of fact due TO the lapsng
| memory OF old age to untruthfulness. Be 1t SO:
| he does not appear to be an adventurer or an No
postor. II Is not reasonable 10 believe that he made
the story related in his affidavit and did not make
| the lamp he has described. Whatever may be said
| as to Goebes veracity, he Is supported at many
| points by witnesses of good repute who speak with
| precision and apparently with deberaton. As al
ready suggested Is not profitable TO 20
over the testimony at length with View TO determine
| the relative value and weight Of every part 1t u
thatfa A.. fair fpda NJ
| testimony I'm support OF the GOebel clain
| There Is not the measure Of proof demanded bv
| complanant's counsel who maintain that the Court
should require proof OF the fact beyond reasonable
| doubt This degree OF certainty Is not often at
tanned upon testimony in the form of affdavits where
the Issue Is contested. And Ii l. not reasonable to
demand such certainty TO the defence Com.
| planants must show a clear right In support Of q
| preliminary writ and a defence which puts the case
| In doubt is sufficient To defeat the application
| goodyear CO. Dunbar / Fisher. Az.
| Ctlaenzer ct al. v Wiederer ct al, So Fe1 Rep.
! $50.
~rran v sharon Valley Maeable and Gray Iron
| CO.. - Fed Rep 451.
Cary V Domestic spring Bed Co.. 20 Fed Rep
3s.
Robinson on Patents. Sec LII.
1T is also conended that the decree OF the Circuit
Court of New-York against the United states Electric
Lighting Company sustaining the patent which decree
|
| ond Circuit. is conclusive Of compartments rishl !"
The writ for which they ask. No doubt Is enter
tanned rs the conclusive effect OF that decree her"
and elsewhere to all matters In Issue IN that Cause
For although respondent wa not party TO mat III
Icaton the Court would not on preliminary mo'ioh
| consider any matter which passed to Judgment III
| that suit Iut the tioebel defence was not made IN
that suit and therefore the has not HE authority
| an this motion which has been Inscribed to it
| National Hat Pouncng Machine Company V. He'd
dens q, AL 30 Fed. Rep. A..
| IL clwood " Faber. - Fed. Rep 3d.
"The Bailey Wringing Machine Company " +. F.
| Adams ct AL Sd b. and \. So
.An,ther suit by the compLinants against the Bea-
| cop Vacuum Pump and Electrical Company In the
ircu Court for the District OF Massachusetts, Is In
| n different attitude. In that suit the Goebel defense
w,s mad. and upon motion for preliminary Injunction
| recently heard and allowed 1t was overruled. IL II
| commended that the ruling In that case should %
recognized and followed precedent In respect TO
the present motion. And perhaps, II the issne' tho
testimony and the situation Of the parties appeared to
h. the same in both cases, such result might follow;
NOR. from the persuasive effect OF the opinion OF an
| other court the same matter than from any nouon
Of authority ascrlbed to such opinion In courts OK
canal jurisdiction proceeding concurrenly In The In
ye,tigation Of the subject the right and duty OF
each to exercise independent judgment cannot be de-
| MED That they should in the end reach the same
result IS greatly be desired but one cannot become
an echo the other for that praiseworthy purpose.
In this instance the consequences TO flow from diverse
| opinions are not regarded rs serious In the Massa'
cl,,s.tts Circa and here WELL the motion Is inter-
locutoy and In each the ruling may well enough
STAND upon the situation of the parties And we have
| much additional testimony to that upon which the
| Court acted In the Beacon case; so that upon an
| ponts do not feel compelled TO accept the opinion
| Of the Court In that case
| The ruling OF the Court, however in the Beacon
case suggests the proprety of taking security from
| respondent for observing the decree In case com.
| plainanls shall ultimately prevail in this suit. There
| are other considerations also which should have
| weight In that direction Ii was suggested by COM
planans' counsel that respondent Is CT small
c,pita. and that II was made with intent avoid
responsibility In respect TO the infringement now laid