The herald., 1897-05-11
Will Continue Control Of
Telephones
sERLINER PATENTS UPHELD
AND ARE GOOD FOE TEN YEARS
TO COME
The United States supreme Court De-
oides That There Was No Fraud
l. Nor Collusion
n.,oc,atsd Press Special wire.

!
nssociated Press Special Wire.
WASHINGTON. May 1o.-The Bell
Telephone Company has won the case
brought against 1t by the United States
to annul the last Bcrlincr patent. This
decision has the effect Of continuing the
control Of the telephone by the Bell
Company for II years from the date OF
the last patent, granted In 1891.
The case has attracted wide attention
because Of the extensive interests in
volved In its settlement and the opinion
of the court has been anxiously awaited.
The suit, 1t was claimed, involved the
practical control of the art Of telephon-
ing. 1t originated in a charge Of collu-
sion in the patent office and was brought
to obtain the repeal and cancellation OF
letters patents u. s. No. 463.56s. dated
November IT, 1891, granted to the Amer
lean Bell Telephone company as as
slgnee Of Emil Berliner, the alleged in
ventor. The repeal and cancellation OF
the patent was sought upon the ground
that the application for it. while filed in
1877, was not issued until 1891. This de-
lay was charged to be unnecessary and
improper on the part of the patent office,
and the Bell Telephone company, which,
as Berliner's assignee. controlled the ap-
plication. 1t was asserted that the COM
pany had acquiesced in and promoted
the delay in their own interests, thus
defrauding the public Of its rights.
1t was claimed the the Berliner patent
practiclly controls telephony, as it has
to do with both the transmission and re-
ceipt Of sound, and that the delay thus
secured until 1891 operated to control
this act for fourteen years beyond 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 1t
was the same invention for which pa
tent had been granted in 1880, and that
the principle was therefore not new.
With reference to the argument on
the subject Of the continuance of the
telephone monopoly, Justice Brewer re-
peated that there was no question that
BeBlrs patent had expired but 1t must
be remembered that Berliner's rights
were Independent from those of Bell. If
there should be new invention upon the
expiration of the Berliner patent, the
rights of it's author could not be abridged
to relieve the public. The inventor of the
latest edition is entitled to full protec-
tion and IL the telephone company buyc
the invention it is entitled to all the
rights which the inventor had
Remarking upon another feature of
the case. the Justice said that taking into
consideration the influences under which
the suit was started. there were indica-
tions 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 inspire rival,
not for the public good but for the pro-
motion of their personal interests.
The conclusions of the court, very
much condensed, on this branch of the
case as to fraud or collusions with the
patent office were:
First-That before the government is
entitled to decree canceling mechan-
ical patent on the ground that 1t has been
fraudulently obtained, 1t must establish
the fraud by convincing testimony.
Second-That an applicant for patent
cannot be held responsible for the dila-
tory acts of patent office officials, unless
the delay is brought about through his
corruption.
Third-The evidence in this case does
not tend in the least degree to show any
such corruption.
Fourth-If the circumstances do not
show that the delay on the part of the
officials was fully justified they do make
It clear that 1t was not wholly unwar-
,ranted.
The suit originated In the United
States circuit court for the district of
Massachusetts,, where 1t was decided in
favor Of the United States. Upon ap-
peal to the court of appeals for the first
circuit this decision was reversed and
the contentious of the Berliner claimants
upheld. From this opinion the United
States appealed to the supreme court.
THE BLYTHE CASE
WASHINGTON, May 10.--Attorney
w. H. II. Hart, of California, for Mrs
FLORENCE Blythe Hinckley, who secured
the property Of the late Henry T. Blythe
made motion to dismiss the case in the
Supreme Court today. Senator Hunton
0f Virginia, for the contestants, opposed
fhe motion and denied that the case had
>een brought to the Supreme Court mere
~ for the purpose of delaying the per-
kecting of Mrs. Hinck,ey's title to the
estate. 1t Is claimed by the contestants
hhat. as Mrs. Hinckley Is a subject of
Great Britain, she could not inherit land
In the United States. and the State
could not enact laws permitting aliens
to inherit land. The court took the pa
perg and reserved its decision.
REHEARING DENIED
WASHINGTON, May 10-The SUI
preme Court today denied the petition
for G rsEearlhg Of the Transmissourf.
FRI inht Ai5sociation case