Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1897-05-13
The Supreme Court Decision.

! The most important consideration in
/ connection with the decision of the Su-
/ preme court of the United States in the
Berllner case is the effect it will have
upon the telephone industry. In 1891,
when the Berllner patent was granted,
the announcement of the action of the
patent office brought disnay to those
who had hoped that the day of the Bell
| monopoly had passed and that the tele-
phone would become ''pubIic property"
with the expiration Of the fundamental
/ patents then controlled by the Ameri-
can Bell telephone company. The Ber-
liner patent was at first regarded as a
new lease of life for the Bell monopoly,
| but when the records were carefully
| examined it was found that there were
many points upon which the validity of
| this new grant could be attacked. The
matter was investigated with consider
able care, and the result of the eXamln-
alton was the filing Of suit in the
name of the government, Feb. 8, 1898,
against the Bell company, alleging
fraud in the methods by which the pat
ent was secured and lack of novelty
and invention in the device described.
1t was this action which ultimately
| reached the Supreme court of the
United States, but it was only upon one
feature that that, tribunal passed-the
question of fraud.
The impression seems to prevail that
this decision will settle the legal CUES
ton as to whether the microphone
transmitter, and therefore the telephone
business itself, will be open to the pub
lie, SO far as patents are concerned; but
this view is entirely erroneous if the
dispatches from Washington are to lie
relied on.
1t is true that had the Berliner patent
been declared void upon any of the
grounds contended by the government
the decision would etfectually dispose
of the Bell company's claims. 1t must
be remembered, though, that the Bell
company claimed that only the question
of fraudulent delay III the patent office
was a proper ground for cancelling a
patent once granted, and that the Su-
preme court was precluded from con-
sidering i'll the case before it the other
arguments which were advanced against
the validity of the patent The Bell
company itself filed brief of legal
authorities to maintain this view By
accepting the Bell contention on this
point and assuming that there has been
no fraudulent delay Of the patent in the
office, the court decided the suit in
favor Of the company, but the decision
really left all other grounds for the in
validity Of the patent to be determined
in the future by suits for infringements.
The policy of the Bell company in
eyading a decision upon all the grounds
of inyalidity that had been raised, and
thus throwing away an opportunity to
gain Il clear title to the invention if it
had right TO it, seems to lend color to
the claim of the independent telephone
companies that the Bell company has
really little faith in this patent, and
that, instead of securing Il judicial de-
cision upon the merits of the case, it
proposes to use the Berliner patent and
the decision of the United States Su-
preme court as club over weaker cor
porations. In spite of ali the claims
that may be made by the American
Bell telephone company and its agents
and advocates, the decision Of the Su-
preme court Of the United States is APP
parently of no practical value in con-
tinuing and sustaining the monopoly of
the telephone industry Chicago Rec
ord