New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-12-20
THE DAY OF MONOPOLY OYER.
EFFECT OF THE BELL TELEPHONE
DECISION.
COMMENT on THE RESULT OF THE ''o

COMMENT ON THE RESULT OF THE Ai'oN
- HOPES or COMPETING COMPANIES
The decision against the Bell Telephone Company
in regard to the validity of the Berner patent wa"
the eubiect of considerable discussion in business
circles Yesterday and the general opinion scent" ~
be that II was the beginning OF the emu vi 'eiei
noponolv Leading lawyers said that, In their opii-
ion the higher courts would sustain 'he deo'S'o',
I, Is not believed however. that the decision VIII
make any appreciable difference in telephone Ia'eS
and accommoda lions AZ present. on account OF 'he
length of time 1t will take for the hisher co"'' -
finally to dispose of the question put 'he e"'0' "
the nrasent decision is no doub, final, and competing
COMPANIES believe that they can reNo.uton@e '"e
,elenhone business before manv years Areau! 'e-
norris come from Chicago that the Harrison ie'e|'
Company expects by the Berl!ncr decision 10 'o"''o
m. telephone business i'm that city. ana iepie-
sentative Of the Drawbaugh Telephone anu e
graph Company said Yesterday that 'he "a! Vi ~
nopov was over and that the Drawpdush 'o'"P",'
uouId now have something 10 say about the 'e'e-
phone business. 49, 1870 go,
rba president of the Metropolitan Telephone ana
reIeeraph Company said Yesterday that the decision
would have no effect upon their business !" We
civ He said that the Berliner patent Wa s'o"
patent and that the Bell company was p'o'e''''
~, snaci6c paten,s in every improvement maue'
A stakeholder of the Sell Telephone Company sdia
that the decision would not affect Inc co'p"'!
;rcooe although II might start ventures IN 'he
telephone field. The decline in the s'ocA' Nv ,''''
had of course caused rights 10 the ne" S'ooh ~
have no value and might oompIica'e supS'' P'0"'
considerably Before rights in the STOCK ca" w
transferred stockholders must subscribe 10 '"e ~"
sbares AZ IsO II the stock should decline peio"
,eo there would necessarily be complications.
According 10 reports from Boston. the Beil iele-
nbone Company has paid dividends oil over ','""'
c,o ON a capitalization OF s2occo," This cou'a n0'
be verified In this city
Henry c. Andrews. OF No. Wai-si'' couhs'' 'o
the Drawbaugh Telephone and Telegraph COMPANY
a,.a on, some interesting details yesterday III d"
,,-,.eu ON the decision against the Bell company
and on the history Of the patent litigation lie sa'u
in part: ,,,., t.,
Though an appeal may be taken the 1scis wanst
The ReIl people The main competitors LOT w
broad patent covering the mcropnohr ~ We'r one or
con Derlner and prawbaugh. Thcre "eir on, ~, 81 -,
Two others. but they were unimpcrani Inc l1e,I
company bought that part Of the h esirni WHEN
has lust been cancelled. The Western mon '0 OH
PS"on3nanv and the Western Union made their con
tract OF consolidation the c9ntroi ., onT The
trouble with the granting Of the fundamenta PAY
emit TO Edison was that he had already Pattl'en
his microphone Inventions in England as carry is
W., my II therefore became n serious question
whether his patents would not be wor'hiess W. ~
vIous expiration Of the English patents AppnhI-
emily this fact. together with the Ihct ma .fI
Western Union. and not the Bell coinran>. OWL, sn
the Edison inventions. decided them to ISSUE IN, NE
broad patents to Berlner. AT the 'lme 'hcy az"
cided the Eagle company case, IN which II was
held that II an inventor took on, patent Tor a
the whole invention. he couid NOT 81 49, "a
take out a broad patent for that inyentlon nhd
thereby prolong his monopoly IL IS TINS principe
that has Just proved fatal to the Eerliner patent
Now while these two main applications were were pehSn no
| ing in the Patent Office. Drawbaugh applied 20 bc
| made n marty TO the contest interference. as II
is technically called between Edison and Bcri RI Ter,
microphone before either Edison Berlner. The
Commissioner Of Patents acting upon ihorlatoni
ground that he would not permit Drawbaush 10 pc
come party TO those pros ecdngs Tor me iet f
that Edison had exhibited his micr9phone N puhn,
| Tor more than two years before Drawbaugh hai
applied for a patent Drawbaushs co9ns' iook 'n i,
| part that inasmuch Drawbaugh hetheT kne" OF
| Edisons exhibit nor had consented 10 II. edison
! public exhibition would not bar DrawDaueh rlsn'
| TO broad patent for microphone bni me co,n-
baugh then took the position that IT. by reason %,
| patent he at least might be permitted to show
that he prior inventor to either Ellson OF ~
liner and that therefore. neither OF these was
| change occurred in the Commisslonersh7 and
/ the Edison and Berllner patents Issued with
| ont the opportunity being given t. Drawoaugh to
show his priority OF course the fact OF his priority
yo,,ld alvavs be available 10 the Drawbaugh COM
pany in any private litigation brought by the zen
! Company agains; Il. Tnc decision just announce
leaves the Drawbaugh Company free 70 - Dnsinos :
| without any fear OF litigation Drawbaueh has APP
plicatlons san pending in the Patent Office for IN
por;ant details in telephone construction ana Nnch
ra,ente for those are issued they WI cover mpoT-
tant forms Of telephones now used. TIC general re
suit Of the decision Is that the telephone business
| which the ft.cst must survive. In the same way as
happened In the matter Of telegraph competition.
| doing me telephone business OF the country ahi
! eventually charging only such rates as the cost 81
monopoly s over. There II every probability OF an
enormous extension In the use Of the tc."ph1n" ana
ths, nearly every house VIII have tel 'phone as a
part OF us equipment much as 1t now has a
| cooking range or a DatatuO.