The Daily Texarkanian., 1894-12-21
THE BELL TELEPHONE
Loses Another Patent Valued at Mil
lions of Dollars,

| Boston, MASS, DeC' IL - uuSe
| Carpenter of the United States
Circuit court, sitting in Boston,
rendered a decision yesterday in the
famous suit of the Government
against the American Bell Tele-
phone Company, respecting the va
lidity of the Berliner patent. The
decision of Judge Ca rpenter was
against the Bell Company, and
when the news reached the Boston
Stock Exchange at noon, Bell Tele-
phone stock broke sharply from
200l to 1917, Jackson. and Curtis,
brokers, identified with the monop-
oily, we're the heaviest sellers. Lat
er in the day Telephone stock raj.
lied to 1914 and closed at 1873,
The suit against the Bell Compa-
ny was bill in equity praying tor
the repeal of letters patent issued
to Emil Berliner on November II
1891, assignor to the American Bell
Telephone Company for a combined
telephone and telegraph system.
The case has been in court in one
way or another for a number of
years, and is familiar to the public,
The patents known as the Berliner
patents were issued to the telephone
company but were never put into
use by them on account of the eX-
penses of making changes in the
system, while other companies were
prevented from using the system in
vogue,
The Berliner patents were held
by the Bell Company as a subter-
fuge to prevent the expiration Of
the original transmitter patent.
The first ground of the bill
brought by the Government in this
suit was that the patent numbered
463, 500, issued on the date specified
was void, as being beyond the pow
er Of the Commissioners to issue
On this point the decision of Judge
Carpenter declares; ut appears
that one of the functions of the de-
vice shown in the patent of 1880,
namely the function of transmit
ting articulate speech, is Identical
with the sole object or function OF
the device covered by the patent
of 1891, and that the device for
efIecting the transmission Of sound
is Identical in both patents, The
patent (the 1891 patenD therefore,
seems to me to be void and beyond
the power Of the Commissioners to
issue.
"The second ground in the suit
is that the issue Of the patent was
unlawfully delayed through the
fault of the respondent, The re-
spondent corporation was Of ample
means to prosecute the application
The result Of any delay which might
take place in the issue of the Berli-
ner patent would evidently be to
continue so much longer the prac-
tical monopoly Of the art of cleo
trical transmission Of articulate
speech. Under the circumstances
think It clear that the duty of the
respondent corporation was 60 use
the greatest degree of diligence in
prosecuting the application to an
early issuee,
"The application for which an in.
reference was anticipated was
that filed July rs, 1890, by Daniel
Drawbaugh, in which he claims to
be the original and first inventor OF
the telephone, There was set on
foot a general understanding, as II
is called, on the part Of the exam
iner and the respective counsel fol
Drawbaugh and for the Bell Tele'
phone Company that the decision
for the application for the Berlnel
patent should await the decision oI
their pending suits. ltwould never
appear in The Patent Office that
Drawbaugh was entitled to a pat
cnt, The plain duty of the respond
ent corporation was, as It seems tt
me, to insist on It's rights to a pat
ent at once"
Judge Carpenters decision is
severe blow to the American Bel
Telephone Company, as 1t weaken'
their patent strength materially
Heretofore competing companle
have been able TO use only tn,
magnetic transmitter, or speaking
tube, by virtue of Judge Carpen
ter'g decision they viii now be abl'
to make use Of the battery trans
mitter The Bell Company still re
tains control of the Hunnings pat
ent, which IL used for long distanc,
telephonng
The verdict against the compan,
means a loss Of $25, 900, ,OOO preSen
n,d ,,aasnaTtiva ahould Ihp Court