The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-05-11
BELL TELEPHONE VICTORY
LIFE OF THIS MONOPOLY Ex-
TENDED ELEVEN YEARS.
Suit Brought to Cancel the Patents
Decided in Favor of the Bell Com
pany by the Supreme Court.

Washington, May 9.-The Bell Tele-
phone company has won the case
brought against it by the United States
to annul the last Berliner patent This
decision has the effect of continuing
the control of the telephone by the Bell
company for seventeen years from the
date of the last patent granted in 1891
The government asked to have the
patent set aside on the ground that the
delay of thirteen years in the patent
office was fraudulent, through the fault
Of the telephone company, and that the
patent isued in 1880 covered the same
ground on which the new patent
was applied for in 1891. The supreme
court, in an opinion delivered by
Justice Brewer, held that there was no
evidence of corruption or undue in
fiuence exercised over the patent office
by the telephone company, and no
evidence that the delay in granting the
patent had been brought about by the
company. The delay was through the
fault of the patent Office. Justice Har-
Ian dissented.
Justice Gray and Brown, it was an
nounced, took no part in the case, pre-
sumably because they were interested.
The court held that in order to set
aside a patent the government must
establish grounds of relief as clear and
satisfactory as TO set aside a land
patent. All other allegations of the
government besides that of delay were
overruled. This decision sustains the
lower courts.
With reference to the arguments on
the subject of the continuance of the
telephone monopoly, Justice Brewer re-
peated that there was no question that
Bells patent had expired, but it must
be remembered that Berliners rights
were independent from those of Bell.
If there should be a new invention upon
the expiration of the Berliner patent
the rights of its author could not be
abridged to relieve the public. The in
ventor of the latest invention is en-
titled to full protection, and if the
telephone company buys the invention
it is entitled to all the rights which the
inventor had
Remarling upon another feature of
the case, the Justice said that, taking
into consideration the influences under
which the suit was started, there were
indications that the purpose of striking
down the patent was to give value to
others, and that private competitors of
the Bell company were seeking to in
spire a rival, not for the public good,
but for the promotion of their personal
interests.
The conclusions of the court, very
much condensed on this branch of the
case as to fraud or collision with the
patent office, were:
THAT before the government is en-
titled to a decree cancelling a mechani-
cal patent on the ground that it has
been fraUdulently obtained, it must eS-
tablish the fraud by conveying testi-
mony.
2-That an applicant for patent can
not be held responsible for the dilatory
acts of patent office officials, unless the
delay is brought about through his cor
ruption.
3-The evidence in this case does not
tend in the least degree to show anv
such corruption.
4-If the circumstances do not show
that the delay on the part of the of
ficials was wholly justified they do
make it, clear that it was not wholly
unwarranted.
The case has attracted wide atten-
ton because of the extensive interests
involved in its settlement and the
opinion of the court has been anxiously
awaited The suit, it was claimed, in
volved the practical control of the art
of telephoning. 1t originated in a
and was brought to obtain the repeal
and cancellation of letters of the
United States No. 463, $685. dated Nov
ember II, 1891, granted to the American
Bell Telephone company as assignee of
Emil Berliner. the alleged inventor
The repeal and cancellation of the
patent was sought upon the ground
that while the application for it was
fled in 1877, it was not issued until 1891.
This delay was charged to be unneceS-
sary and improper on the part of the
patent office and the Bell Telephone
company, which as Berliner's assignees,
controlled the application. 1t was as
serted that the company had acqui-
esced in and promoted the delay and
their own interest. thus defrauoing the
public of its rights.
It was claimed that the Berliner
patent practically controls telephony,
as it has to DO with both the transmits
sion and receipt of sound, and that the
delay thus secured until 1891 operated
to prolong the control of this act for
fifteen years beyond the time of the
expiration of the Bell patent.
1t was also asserted that the patent
was granted by the commissioner of
patents without authority of law, and
that it was for the same invention for
which a patent had been granted in
1880. and that the principle was there
fore not new. The suit originated in
the United States circuit court for the
district of Massachusetts,. where it was
decided in favor of the United States.
Upon appeal to the court of appeals for
the first circuit. this decision was re-
versed and the contentious of the Ber-
liner claimants upheld. From this
opinion the United States appealed to
the supreme court