St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-12-19
ONE BELL PATENT VOID.
DECISION AFFECTING A TELE-
PHONE MONOPOLY.
Papers Covering the Berliner In
yentions Ordered Can
celed.

BOsTON, Dec. 1S.-The long-contest-
ed patent suit of The United States VS..
The American Bell Telephone Com
pany was ended this morning, when
Judge Carpenter, Of the United States
circuit court, rendered a decision against
the telephone company. This suit was
bill in equity praying for the repeal
OF letters patent issued to Emile Ber-
liner, assigEor of the American Bell
Telephone company, for a combined
telephone and telegraph system.
The case has been in the court for q
number of years, and is already fa-
miliar to the public. The Berliner pat
ents were issued to the telephone COM
pany, but never put into use by them.
on account, they claimed. of the ex-
pense of making changes in the tele-
phoEe system, while other companies
were prevented 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
commissioner to issue. On this
point the decision of Judge Carpenter
declares: ut appears that one of the
functions of the device shown in the
patent of $780, namely the function of
transmitting articulate speech, is iden-
tcal with the sole object or functions
Of the device covered by the patent of
1891, and that the device for etfecting
the transmission of SOUND is idenIIcal
in both patents. The patent, therefore,
seems to me
To Re Void
and beyond the power of the commits.
siOner to issue.
"Tbe second ground In the suit is that
the issue of patent was unlawfullv de-
layed through the fault of respondent.
The respondent corporation was of
ample means to prosecute the applica-
tion. The result of any delay which
might take place I'm the issue of Ber-
liner patent would evidently be to con-
tinue so much longer the practical mo-
nopoly OF the art of electrical transmits
sion of articulate speech. Under the
circumstances / think it clear that the
duty Of the respondent corporation was
to use the greatest degree of diligence
in prosecuting the application to an
early issue.
''The application from which an in
reference was anticipated was that
hled July 70, lS9O, by Daniel Draw
baugh, In which he claims 10 be the
original and first inventor of the tele-
phone.
There was set on foot a general un-
derstand ing, as it is called, on the part
of the examiner and the respective
counsel for Drawbaugh and for the Bell
company, that the decision for the ap.
plication for the Berliner patent should
await the decision Of other pending
suits. 1t would never appear in the
patent office that Drawbaugh was en-
titled to patent. The plain duty of
the respondent corporation was, as it
seems to me, to insist on Its right to
patent at once.
THAT the unwarrantable delay thus
caused was intended by the respondent
corporation, can have no doubt.
Il think that these acts were so gross
as TO forbid any inference except that
they dishonesty delayed the issue of
the patent, taking advantage for that
purpose of the perhaps eXcusable will
ingness of the officials Of the patent Of
fee to postpone the decision of q sharply
debated question in which large pub
lie interest was involved.
"My conclusion, therefore, is that the
complainant has made out the case, and