The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-03-07

n
f The great case involving stocks valued at
more than $40 o0O.o00 and patents estimated
% be worth N11.0D000. which was decided
by the United States supreme court on
r Moniay. and reported ia our dispatches on
Tuesday. had q very modest beginning
a man named Bate. who had patent on
a rsfriceraror. sued a butcher named
. sulzberger for about $3o0 damages for
cooling his sausages by the Bate process
without acquiring the right 10 10 so.
IN this little suit. however. was hidden
a point Of law ia which other and vast
interests were concerned Among these
interests were the Bell Telephone Com
paay. the General Electric Company and
other companies which have valuable pat
euts. These interests were quick 10 see
what was IN the little sausage case. and
when IL was argued in the lower court.
and when it was heard in the supreme
court. their lawyers were present and
made the arguments and furnished the
briefs. These lawyers are among the
most distinguished in the legal profession,
and the decision was. all things consider
81, the most important patent casA de-
cisioa ever handed down by the highest
court of the country
The issue was the correct Interpretation
OF section 1857. OF the revised statutes.
which limits the life Of a United States
patent 10y the term Of a previously granted
foreign patent for the same invention.
What is meant by this statute is this.
If a citizen Of this country takes out. in
foreign country patent on an invention
for "A term OF years and aGterward takes
out patent on the same invention in this
country. his patent in this country ex-
pires at the same time the foreign patent
does, although the life of a patent in this
country is seventeen years. when the
patent is taken out in this country before
being taken out in foreign country.
In the Bate and Sulzberger case an ap-
plication for a patent was made in this
country before a patent was taken out in
foreign country. and it was. therefore,
contended that the statute limiting the
life Of the patent in this country to the
life Of the patent in the foreign country
with This view Il held the intention of the
statute to be that the date Of issue Of the
patent and not the date of the applica.
tion for it decides the question whether
or not foreign patent has been previously
granted.
The decision hits hard some of the own
ers Of very valuable electrical inventions
For instance, the Bell Telephone Company
took out patent for one of it's most val
liable inventions only two years ago. 1t
had made application for patent four
teen years before. but had not taken out
the patent. Why it did not is easy to
understand. If it had taken out the pat
ent when it filed it's application it would
have had the use of the patent only sew
enteen years. But for this decision. de-
livered last Monday, # would have enjoyed
the patent thirty-one years-the fourteen
years while the application was hung up
in the patent Office and the seventeen years
for which the patent was granted 1t is to
be understood Of course. that Immediately
after making the application for patent
in this country it took out patents in for
eign countries, and under the decision The
shortest term of any one of the foreien
patents determines the life of the patent
in this country.
The decision affects a large number of
patents in one way and another. Val
liable patents that were expected to be in
force for years are rendered valuless.
and any one is free to make use of then
About the only advantage that the Bell
company has now is that it has its plant
and Is in possession Of the telephone bus
mess. 1t Is understood also that some of
the most valuable patents on the Edison
lamp are affected by the decision.