The enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 188?-1899, 1897-11-17
THE LAST PHASE
OF THE LEGAL FIGHT OVER
THE TELEPHONE PATENTS.

The Ruling of the Patent ONCE Will be
Sustained-Corrected Directory List OF
Teller. ..ro Subscribers-Failure Toledo
H,4 4n. t-Nchange.
There has recently come to our notice
a sketch of the legal history and the
present status of the telephone situs-
tion. A brief outline may prove inter-
esting. In 1877. Emile Berliner. a
helper and clerk by day, student OF
chemistry, acoustics and electricity by
night, comprehending the advantages
of Bells invention for the transmission
of sound by electricity, sought to i'm
prove upon his contrivance. Berliner
was eminently successful. He in
vented the modern transmitter in jan
uary 1877 and it was for this invention
that patent No. $3.50 was granted
on November II, 1891, though applied
for on June 4, 1877. IN April, 1877 Ber-
liner invented new type of receiver
for the telephone. The original appli-
cation of June 4, was for both these
inventions. But according to the US
usual practice of the Patent Office at
that time, division of the application
was required. Letters patent No. 233.-
800 was issued on the receiver Novem-
ber 2, $780, In the meanwhile the ap-
plication for patent on the transmit
ter was placed in interference. In
June |, 1882, BerlIner was notified that
the claims of his application for pat
ent on his transmitter had been found
allowable, but that the issue of the
patent was suspended in view of a prob
able interference. From then until
March 1888, the application awaited the
trial and decision of the Drawbangh
case, first in the Circuit Court and
then in the Supreme Court. The furth-
er delay OF three years was due to
orders Of the commissioner, made upon
deliberation, with full knowledge of
the facts and of the evil consequences
of delay. This delay was to determine
whether this patent was identical in
principle and mechanically with the
1880 patent granted for receiver. Final
ly, on November II, 1891, patent was
issued for the transmitter.
Over two and quarter million dol
lars has been spent by the Bell Com
pany in defending its telephone patents
and it has won every suit. The suit
now pending in the U. s. Circuit Court
of the District of Massachusetts, which
may shortly be decided, settles the last
legal point in the telephone contrO-
versy, namely, whether the 1891 patent
is identical with that of 1880. Upon
the outcome of this suit hangs the
right to use any telephone transmitter.
That the Bell Company will secure the
decision is foregone conclusion, since
it is held not to be good law for the
courts to pass upon Patent Office find
ings, there being no fraud in the case
Justice Brewer in giving the decision
of the Supreme Court clearing the
Bell people and the Patent Office Off.
cials of fraud in the delay of issuing
the patent, said: Least Of all was il
intended to be affirmed that the courts
of the United States, sitting as court:
of equity, could entertain Jurisdiction
of a suit to set aside patent for an in
vention on the mere ground of error ol
judgment on the part Of the patent Of.
ticials." Those who have taken cour-
Jge at the apparent inactivity of the
Bell Company may soon have occa
sion to regret their temerity.
Changes in the telephone numbers
, occasioned by transfer to new office
are as follows:
10 American House
693 Artz, &c
9O4 Bending Works
40 Do-aI;ok u oaa1 and ro W ~ N N.