The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1896-11-14
BERLlNER PATENTS
An Important Case Being Argued
BEFORE the supreme Court.

Washington, Nov. 1O.--The case Of the
United States against the Bell Tele-
phone was argued in the
United States supreme court yesterday.
In some respects the case is regarded as
amorg the most important before the
court, as it involves the validity of the
Berliner patents owned by the Bell COM
pany.
Attorney General Harmon. solicitor
General Conrad and a number OF attor-
neys represent the suit on behalf of the
United States, while the Bell company
has q heavy array of counsel. me
Standard Telephone company is also
represented by counsel, who have filed
a brief on two points in behalf OF the
government. The Standard company
has no direct litigation except as 1t at
fects the general use of telephones. II
is said thai a decision in favor OF the
government would tend to opel the
telephone to public use.
Owing to the Importance OF the inter
ests involved the court granted nine
hours for argument, which Will continue
the case for about three days. Judge
r. S. Taylor of Indianapolis opened the
argument yesterday in behalf or the
United States.
llle SUIT DeSdU ftDIudlS q , 1870, IN
the attorney general filed d bill in equi-
ty against the American Bell Telephone
company and Emile Berliner asking for
the annulinent of the patent. An al
ternati.e prayer was made that If the
patent was declared wholly null and
void it should be repealed in part as
the court deemed proper.
Tine Berlinei application for patent
was fled June 4, 1877. but the patent was
not issued until fourteen years thereaf-
ter.
The main points raised by the Unit
ed States are:
That the patent is void for the Tile
gal delay In its issue.
That is is also void on the ground
that a prior patent was granted upon
the same application to the same appli-
can't for rll. same invention. The pat
ent covers what is known as the micro
phone.
The attorney generals bill set up that
the Bell Telephone company designed
~ and with intent to thereby prolong its
monopoly, delayed and prolonged the
pendency of the application for more
than thirteen years after its control OF
the patent"
The Bell Telephone company, in Its
answer, points Out that tho United
States officials from the first have had
entire control OF the application for
patent. and an express denial is made
that there was any fraud, accident or
mistake. t. company maintained that
it had not ~designedly delayed the issue
of the patent with q view of extending
its rights. 1t alleged that il there was
any slowness 1T was the act Of the
plaintiff itself, the United States.
The ease waS tried in the United
States circuit court for the district of
Massachusetts, wfer@ thn contentious
of the United States were sustained.
The Bell company appealed to the cir
cult court OF appeals. where th@ pre-
ceeding decision Was reversed on the
ground that there was evidence OF dere-
LECTION OF dutN in the patent office, and
the bill in equity uf the United States
was dismissed. J'i,% ease now comes
before the supreme court OH IN appeal
by the United States from The decision
Of the court of appeals. The same points
first presented, as 10 delay, are still
foremost, aid the arguments of counsel
Yesterday We're directed mainly to these
points.