The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-05-11
Charges of Fraud I'm the Patent Office
Ten More Years of Life.
NO REHEARING FOR RAILWAYS
PETITION IN THE TRANsMISSOURI
ASSOCIATION CASE DENIED.
wabash Road Beaten in an Attempt to
Prevent an Ohio City from Chang
ing Grade of Streets.


Special to the indianapolis Journal.
WASHINGTON, May 1G.-The sweeping
decision of the Supreme Court in the suit
brought by the government to set aside the
Berliner telephone patent would seem to
entrench the Bell Telephone Company in its
monopoly of the telephone business for an
other ten years. The Berliner patent was
issued in 1891 and has ten years longer yet
to run. The principle covered by the patent
is claimed to be vital to the telephone. and
that without it neither the Western Union
nor the Harrison Company, nor any Of the
new concerns in the field can hope to sue
cessfully compete with the Bell.
The history of the Berliner patent is one
of the very worst scandals that ever in
volved the Patent Office. The application
was filed originally in 1877 and was hung up
by a series of skillfully managed inter
ferences" for fourteen years or within three
years of the expiration of the Bell patents,
and then showed out. Rank corruption was
charged and the whole Patent Office reeked
with scandal. The Supreme Court, how
ever, seems to have ignored the charges
completely and the effect of to-days de-
cision is to give the patent a clean bill of
health and character as pure as the driven
snow. The court, in its opinion,
there was no evidence of corruption or un-
due influence exercised over the Patent Of
flee by the telephone company, and that
there was no evidence that the delay in
granting the patent had been brought
about by. the company 1t held that what
ever delay there had been was through the
fault of the Patent Office and by no fault
of the company. Justice Harlan dlssented
from the opinion. Justices Gray and Brown,
it was announced, took no part in the case,
presumably because they were interested.
The court held that in order to set aside
a patent the government must establish
grounds of fraud as clear and satisfactory
as it would to set aside land patent. All
other allegations of the government be-
sides that of delay were overruled This
decision by the Supreme Court sustains the
pext lower courts. With reference to the
arguments on the subject of the continu-
ance of the telephone monopoly justice
Brewer repeated that there was no ques-
tiCn that the Bell patent had expired,
but it must be remembered that Berliners
rights were independent from those of Bell.
If there should be a new invention on the
expiration of the Berliner patent the rights
of it's author could not be abridged to re-
lieve the public. The inventor of the latest
addition Is entitled to full protection, and
il telephone company buys that invention
it is entitled to all the rights which the
inventor had. The court, he says. dissent
ed entirely from the views urged by coun-
sci that the applicant for patent n, Wes t
an invention was the absolute property Of
its inventor. The government, in order to
make it's case, must establish affirmattvely
that the delay in the Patent Office was
caused by the conduct of the applicant.
1t cannot rest on mere inferences, but must
prove the wrong in such manner as to
satisfy the judgment before it can destroy
that which it's own agents have created.
This requirement the government had failed
Remarking upon another feature of the
case the justice said that, taking into con-
sideration the influences under which the
suit was started, there were indications
that the purpose of striking down this pat
ent 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 fer the protection of their
personal interests. The conclusions of the
court very much condensed on this branch
of the case as to fraud or collusion at the
Patent Office, were:
"First--That before the government is en-
titled to a decree canceling a mechanical
patent on the ground that it had been
fraudulenty obtained it must establish the
fraud by convincing testimony.
Second - That IA applicant for patent
cannot be held responsible for the dilatory
acts of Patent Office officials unless the de-
lay 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 wholly justified they do not
make it clear that it was wholly unwar
ranted."
HISTORY OF THE CASE.
The case has attracted wide attention be-
cause of the extensive interests involved
in it's settlement and the opinion OF the
court has been anXiously awaited. The
suit it was claimed, involved the practical
control of the art of telephoning. 1t orig
mated in q charge of collusion in the
Patent Office and was brought to obtain
the repeal and cancellation of letters patent
of the United States No. 463569 dated
Nov. II, 1891, granted to the American Bell
Telephone Company as assignee of Emile
Berner, the alleged inventor The repeal
and cancellation OF the patent were sought
on the ground that the application for it,
while filed in 1871, was not issued until 1891.
This delay was charged to be unnecessary
and improper on the part of the Patent Of
flee by the Bell Telephone Company which
as Berliner's assignee, controlled the APP
plication. 1t was asserted that the company
had aCquesced in and promoted the delay
and for their own interest, thus defraudine
the public of its rights. 1t was claimed that
the Berliner patent practically controls tel
ephoneS, as ii has to do with both the
transmission 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 commits
sioner of patents without authority of law
and that it was for the same invention for
which a patent had been granted i'm 1880
and that the principle was therefore not
new. The suit originated in the United
States Court for the district of Massachu-
setts, where ii was decided in favor of the
United States Upon appeal to the Circuit
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 will case, which involves the
estate OF Henry T. Blythe, the California
millionaire was before the Supreme Court
to-day. Attorney w. II. Hart, of California
for Mrs. Florence Blythe Hinckley. who
secured the Blythe property made a mo-