St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-05
BATTLE OF GIANTS
Comes to an End in a Decision
by the United States Su-
preme Court.
KNOCKOUT FOR BELL co.
Under the Ruling Three I'M
portant Edison Patents
Terminate.
MANY MILLIONS INVOLVED.
Life of Scores of Other Pat
ents Affected by the
Decision.
KNOCKOUT FOR BELL co.
MANY MILLIONS INVOLVED.

NEW YORK, March 4.-The dec;s.
ion of the supreme court of the
United States handed down today,
unanimously sustaining the decis-
ion of the lower court in the case of
Bate Refrigerating Company against
Sulzberger, is probably more far
reaching in its influence and affects
larger amount of property than
any decision of the court since the
"greenback' cases were disposed of.
This decision not only settles the
controversy between the parties di-
rectly interested, viz: The General
Electric company and the American
Bell Telephone company, on the one
side, and the Westinghouse and anti
Bell Telephone company on the other
side, but also disposes of a very
large number of other patents which
the public have assumed to have ex-
PRED under the ruling of the lower
court, but which would have been
revived if the decision of the SUI
preme court in this case had been
the life of a great mCny patents
which have not yet actually ex-
pired. The decision is against the
position taken by the General Elec-
trio company and the American Bell
Telephone company, and those asso-
ciated with them upon the appeal,
and affirms the decision previously
rendered by the United States cir
cult court in this circuit. This de-
cision
TERMINATES THREE EDISON
PATENTS
for the carbon transmitter owned
by the American Bell Telephone
company, by which it hoped to ex-
tend its control for twenty-five years
more, as would have been the case
had the decision below been re-
versed. A considerable number of
very broad patents owned by the
General Electric company are also
disposed of by this decision, includ-
ing MIR. Edison's patent upon the in
candescent lamp, regarding which
there has been so much litigation.
and also his patent on the multiple
arc" system of distribution, and his
patent on the socket for incandes-
cent lamps, which was recently held
to be valid by Judge Coke.
The history of the case of the
Bate Refrigerator company against
Sulzberger is very interesting. The
case involves directly a very small
sum OF money, and the compliments
would in all probability have never
thought it worth while to bring the
case to hearing had it not been
that the lawyers of the General
Electric company and the Bell Tele-
phone company discovered that this
case directly involved the point i'm
which they were so vitality interested
and would furnish the earliest OPP
portunity of bringing it before the
supreme court. The result was that
the compliments soon found them
selves represented in court by such
eminent and expensive counsel as
James Carter, James J. StarroW. of
Boston, counsel for the Bell Tele-
phone company, and ex-Commission-
er OF Patents c. E. Mitchell, of New
York, counsel for the General Elec
trio company. No sooner had these
eminent counsel put in an appear
ance than the defendant Sulzberger
found himself represented by the
equally eminent counsel retained bv
the Westinghouse Electric company
and the anti-Bell interests. includ-
ing Wheeler Fl. Peckham, Edmund
Wetmore, Ben II. Bistow, Leonard
Curtis, of New York. From this
time on the battle was
ONE BETWEEN GIANTS.
The question was elaborateIy ar
gued before the circuit court of an
peals for this circunt, Judges Wal
lace, Shipman and Lacombe sitting.
but this court declined to take the
responsibility of deciding the uues-
ton, and certified it up to the su-
preme court of the United States.
This court treated the case as one
OF so great importance that it took
the very unusual course of assigning
1t for hearing some three years in
advance of the regular order and
also allowing about the double the
usual time for argument. These
oral arguments were by James C.
Garter and ex-Commissioner Of Pat
ents Mitchell for the General EIec-
trio and Bell Telephone interests,
and by Edmund Wetmore and Wheel
er FL. Peckham for the Westinghouse
and anti-Bell Telephone interests,
and large number of briefs were
filed on behalf of various other in
terests affected.
Probably there has been no case
argued before the supreme court
since the war, in the outcome of
which so many lawyers were inter-
ested.