New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-09-08
1.-THE ATTEMPTED ELEVATOR MONOPOLY"
A LETTER FROM THE A. B SEE MANU-
FEATURING COMPANY.

PROMPTED BY THE y +LkCIklSlii AhA'~~
on THE ELEVATOR TRUST.
A series Of articles on the Elevator Trust was
published under :he above heading In "Elec-
trieity'' in the Issues of June 1926. July l7-si
The suit brought against our frm by the Otis
Company was referred to In those articles.
To set before the public. therefore. at this
time the various facts in the case seems OUT
fair to purchasers OF electric elevators.
We early saw that electricity was TO play IN
important part in elevator development ana et
the outset made a careful study OF what was
required TO make a practical and operative eIec-
trio elevator and then set to work to invent
machine that would meet these conditions AZ
the same time we made careful and thorough
searches of patents relating 10 electric elevators
which assured us that our experiments were
along new lines.
We. Therefore knew when we had ,nven'eo
and patented our automatic electrical devices'
which have made electric elevators so great
a success. that they did not In any way infringe
any patent previously granted
Rumors came 10 us that there had been iormeo
by the Otis Company and number OK o"T
elevator companies a secret combine for the pur-
pose Of controlling and gathering to themselves
all the elevator business OF the country.
patents, for original inventions OF new devices.
we knew no combine. secret or otherwise couio
inture our business by fair methods
Arer awhile the Elevator Trust. through the
Otis Company began suit against one OF our
customers (the defence Of which We at once as
sumed). giving purchasers TO believe that the
suit was brought because there was a similarity
between our electric elevator and the one the
Otis Company were selling. That was not true.
We were manufacturing under our own pat
ents and the Otis Company were manWactur.
ing by license under the "Eickermeyer' pasens,
while the suit was brought on an old patent
under which no one manufactured and under
which no one could manufacture. as the patent
is good for nothing.
What is claimed as being invented In patent
number 324621. granted August is. 1885. on
which suit was brought. was so well known be-
fore the patent was applied for, and so fully de-
scribed in journals in the early days OF the DE-
,veropment OF the electrical Industry. that IL -
hard to understand how an Intelligent man
could bring a suit pm such patent, and what
makes the suit doubly absurd is the fact that
we do not use what is claimed in the patent as
being invented.
The way the suit was brought clearly shows
that the Otis Company knew there was nothing
acquainted with patent affairs that where q
firm has q patent which they believe 10 be in
fringed and where they get redress In no
other way they always begin and press vigor-
ously suit against the manufacturer, and that
where a suit is brought against a customer 1t 10
purely for the purpose Of intimidation.
The Otis Company may have thought 1t
showed great business ability TO sue. unknown
to us, one of our customers. then try to
frighten purchasers on a suit so brought before
we so much as had chance TO begin the de-
fence Of the suit. but the business men with
whom we are accustomed TO deal do things in
different way.
Learning that the Otis Company were threat
ening suit we asked Mr. Otis, shortly before
the suit was begun. to name any of their pat
ents that he even thought we infringed, and he
refused More than that. we have at all times
held ourselves ready to confer with the Otis
Company in regard TO patent questions. so this
litigation is without excuse.
OF honorable competition we had nothing to
fear and OF any underhand means they might
employ TO harm our business. We knew we could
warn the public through the press. OF this we In
formed Mr.. Otis by letter November "a. 1884,
from which we quote follows: The article
which appears In to-day's World was written
because We find you are still giving the patent
suit as a reason why purchasers should not buy
our electric elevators. So long as you continue
to make this of that suit, so long shall we
continue TO publish the facts. II Is not fair to
purchasers that they should be deluded by mis-
representations"
We have continued 70 feel 1t to be our duty
TO lay before the public the facts not only for
the information OF purchasers of electric ele-
vators, but also for the guidance OF other firms
similarly attacked. for there is nothing these
combines so much dread as publicity. and there
is nothing like publicity to make speedy end
ing OF. their cowardly Interference with other
peoples business.
Only recently man who had been greatly
annoyed by threats of patent suits made 10 MS
customers came to us FOR advice having heard
that we had COPIED successfully with the gue-
rilia attacks of like nature that had been made
business.
Then 1t seemed to US that there ought 70 be
found some way OF stopping these, what might
not inappropratey be called patent gueril-
las" who start a suit on a worthless patent
then go into offices where competitors have LETT
estimates, telling purchasers who are ubac-
quainted with the facts that they buy the
competitors machine they viii also be buy
ing lawsuit" thus seeking to rob a COMPETE
tor of the fruits of his invention-of orders that
would otherwise be his.
We believe the day is not far distant when
business men will tell such persons to settle in
the courts. like men, their grievances IL they
have any, as other affairs are settled. and to
confine themselves in selling to- the merits Of
their machines.
A. r. SEE MANUFACTURING CO..
No. 116l2O Front-st., Brooklyn. ~ 2.
ALONZO B. SEE
Z