Alpena argus. [volume] (Alpena, Mich.) 1893-1909, 1894-12-26
Against the Bell Telephone.

The long contested patent suit or
the United States VS.. the American
Bell Telephone Co., was ended at
Boston on the 18th, when Judge
Carpenter of the United States Cir
cult Court, rendered a decision
against the telephone company.
This suit was bill in equity pray
ing for the repeal of letters patent
issued to Emil Berliner, assignor of
the American Bell Telephone Co.,
for combined telephone and tele-
graph system. The case has been
in the court for number of years
and is already familiar to the public.
The Berliner patents were issued to
the telephone company, but never
put into use by them on account,
they claimed. of the expense of max
ing changes in the telephone system,
while other companies were pre-
vented from using the system.
The first ground of the bill
brought by the complainants in
this suit is that the patent is void, it
being beyond the power of the COM
missioner to issue. On this point
the decision of Judge Carpenter de-
clares:
ut appears that one of the func-
tons of the device shown in the
patent of 1880, namely, the func-
ton of transmitting articulate
speech, is identical with the sole OBJ
ject or function of the device COW
cred by the patent of 1891, and
that the device for effecting the
transmission of sound is identical
in both patents. The patent, there
fore, seems to me to be void and be-
yond the power of the commissioner
to issue.
1.-THE second ground in the suit is
that the issue of patent was unlaw.
fully delayed through the fault OF
respondent. The respondent cor.
poration was of ample means tC
prosecute the application. The re.
suit of any delay which night take
place in the issue of the Berlinel
patent would evidently be to con
tinue so much longer the practica
monopoly of the art of electrical
transmission of articulate speech
Under the circumstances, | think
it clear that the duty of the respond
ent corporation was to use the great
est degree of diligence in prosecut
ing the application to an early issue
"The application for which al
interference was anticipated wa.
that filed July 28. 1890, by DAME
Drawbaugh, in which he claims to
be the original inventor of the tele
phone. There was set on foot s
general understanding as it is called
on the part of the examiner and the
respective counsel for Drawbaugt
and for the Bell company, that tn,
decision for the application for thu
Berliner patent should await the de-
cision of their pending suits. i
wonld never appear in the patent
office that Drawbaugh was entitled
to patent. The plain duty Of thu
respondent corporation was, as i
seems to me, to insist OH its righ
to % patent at once. That the un
warrantable delay thus caused was
intended by the respondent corpora
ton, | can have no doubt.
Il think that these acts were Sc
gross as to forbid any Inference, ex'
cept that they dishonesty delayed
the issue of the patent, taking adj
vantage for that purpose of the per-
haps excusable willingness of thu
officials of the patent office to post.
pone the decision of a sharply-de.
bated question IN which alarge pub.
lie interest was involved. NV con.
clusion, therefore, is that the com.
plainant has made out the case anG
that there should he "a decree tina,
the patent in question was void and
shall be delivered up and Cancelled.