The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1897-05-22
THE TELEPHONE DECISION.
It Will Not Operate to Stop Other
Telephone Companies.

Mr. w. l.. Marbury, counsel for the Home
Telephone Company, of Baltimore city, made
the following statement in regard to the deci-
sion of the United States Supreme Court on
Monday in favor of the Bell Telephone Com.
pany in the suit by the Government to annul
the Berliner patent:
II have no idea that the decision will have
any practical effect whatever in ch nging the
telephone situation. The fact is that no new
feature is introduced into the situation by this
decision 1t is nothing more than an affirm
ance of a decision to the same effect rendered
by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals
on appeal from Judge Carpenter, on May %,
1895, almost exactly two years ago. This
patent, which has become known as the
Berliner patent, was attacked by the United
States government, and sought to be annulled,
on the grounds that it has been procured by
fraud, and on the further ground that patent
of substantially e same invention had been
granted in 1880, SO that the principle was not
new In other words. on the ground of lack
of patentabilty.
''The decision of Judge Carpenter, in the
United States Circuit Court, in Massachusetts,
had been against the Bell Company, on the
ground that the patent had been obtained by
fraud This decision had been reversed, as
already stated, so that the patent for what
ever it may have been worth, was in full force
and effect from that time-that is to say, from
the 29h of May, 1S95-and any power or
right to control the telephone situation in this
country, which could be based upon the
ownership of that patent, has been in the
hands of the Bell Telephone Company ever
since that time. The Bell Company did moth
ing, however, and, even if this Berliner patent
were of any real value, it is too late for it to
u tba Of tba
use of telephones by independent companies.
In order to prevent the operation of the indie
pendent telephone companies, the Bell Com
pany would have to file bill in court of
equity asking for an injunction to restrain
those companies from further continuing the
use of their telephones. According to per-
fecty well established principles of law and
equity, the first thing which the Bell Company
would have to show would be that it had not
been guilty of any unreasonable delay in pros
ecuting offenders against its alleged patent
rights. The law requires that the owner of
of patent, if he desires to have other people
prevented from using 1t, must take prompt
measures TO prevent their so doing by giving
them warning of his rights, and by promptly
institu ing legal proceedings to stop them
when tn neglect his warnings. He has not
a right to sit quietly by and allow other per-
sons to invest their money in plants or estab
lishments which require the use of his patent,
and afterwards call upon court of equity to
destroy the value of those inyestn elts for his
benefit by granting him an injunction. In this
particular instance, since the decision of the
Court of Appeals two years ago in favor ofthe
Bell Company, that company has seen millions
of dollars invested by Independent telephone
companies in telephone plants from one end
of the country to the other. Several hundred
thousand telephones are-in full operation in
this country in opposition to the Bell Com
pany. If this Berliner patent really gave that
company any monopoly, it could have closed
all these plants and put stop to the opera
ton of all these telephones at any time within
the last two years. The decision of the
Supreme Court does not confer any right
whatever upon the Bell Company which it has
not had during that whole period. 1t could
not possibly succeed in any attempt to enforce
It's rights against these companies now. But
the real reason why the Bell Company has
done nothing, and can do nothing, is simply
this No telephone has ever bean made un-
der the Berliner patent which would work
successfully, and none can be made. On the
other hand, under the Edison patents, which
have now expired, according TO the decision
of the Supreme Court in Bates Refrigerator
case, decided March 4ta, 1896, land it is upon
the strength of this decision that all the inde-
pendent telephone companies have been
started, } perfectly satisfactory telephones can
be made, and have been made. 1t was under
this patent that the Western Union Telegraph
Company entered the telephone field in 1878,
in competition with the Bell Company, and
became so formidable competitor that the
latter company was compelled to make terms
wi it, and on November 10, 1879, entered
into an agreement whereby the Western
Union was given large proportion of the
royalties as a reward for relinquishing the
field to the Bell Company. The Berliner de-
csion may be useful for while as a scare
crow, but nothing else. In any event, we
have the carefully considered opinion of patent
specialists to the effect that the telephones
which we use do not constitute any infringe
ment of the Berliner patent"