New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-08-19
ELECTRIC ELEVATORS
A REPLY TO A PROMINENT ARCHITECT
The A. b. See Mfg. Company.

The A. B. See Mfg Company.
Gentlemen:
have been told by Representative Of the or.
Company that they had brought suit against your rm
infringement OF their patent A. number Of my
using Electric Elevator both bel,ed and
direct-connected would like have you give me ~
facts IN the
Yours truly.
NJ. J. Morrill, ESQ.
Dear Sir:
The facts follows: The Otis Company bought
old patent. taken out nine years ago. and b.
gan a suit on It about No machine has svsP
been made according to this patent. because such ma
chine would not work.
For than years before the Otis Company
brought this suit they made threats purchasers that
they going to We consulted our Attorneys
Messrs. Phillips Avery number OF times during these
years to know could not compel them either to
bring their stop he threats There seemed to be -
law TO reach such case probably because this methoo
OF interfering with the business Of competitor ha4
re.orted before These threats SEEMED -
pccaly foolish records showed that the Otis Com
pany patented practically nothing in connection with
Electric Elevators and also showed that the Otis Com
had signed to another company about all the
patents Of whatever nature they had eves owned.
We believe the suit brought not to be tried bus
aid the Otis Company in selling We at once ~
tanned Mr. Livingston Clifford. the patent advocate and
Mr.. Franklin L. Pope the electrical expert men eminene
in their professions with Messrs Phillips Avery.
compelled them to take the absurd position that this
patent the sole right apply shuntwound motors
with low resistance armaures to elevators something the
patent does claim. The patent is No. S24.62l.
granted Aug. 49, 1855.
You may not be familiar with these terms but that b
the motor which almost universal use. and which
was made long before patent In suit granted.
Mr. J. sprasue elevators by motors Of this
kind manufacture before the patent
granted which the Otis Company licensed
The Otis Company have given purchasers to understand
that this suit brought machine was an
infringement Of theirs. This Is not true There 10 no
similarity between our patents under which manu-
facture the patent. granted 1884, under which the
Otis Company licensed manufacture. nor between
our patent and the paten, in suit
We began OF the Electric Elevator question
pror TO 1889. that broad claim patent
could be obtained fact electric elevators had been
made both in this country and In Europe far back
1870 and and broadly patented What was ~
ouired practical means 10 operate the motoe
from the car This worked until we had produces
our automatic controller with such unA
yersa success This device is different in design. Coz
s,ructon and operation from any that had been
The unpleasant feature case you readily
have been these threats TO purchasers an
their agents without knowing It. We know howevs.
there were many believe them. and we Az
glad OF this opportunity state again these facts which
are fast becoming throughout the trade
Hoping fully answered your questions.
We
Yours very truly
A. b. SEE MFG COMPANY.
Brooklyn. Aug IS. 1894