The enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 188?-1899, 1897-05-12
rHE Bell ooMpANY WINS.
The United States Supreme Court Decides
= Very Important Lawsuit In Favor of
tho Telephone MonopOly,


The United States Supreme Court Decides
= Very Important Lawsuit In Favor OF
tho Telephone Monopoly.
WASHINGTON, May IL - The Bell
Telephone Co. yesterday won tho case
brought against 1t by the United States
to annul the last Berliner patent. This
decision has the effect of continuing
the control of tke telephone by the
Bell company for II years from the
date Of the last patent, which was
granted in 1891. The government
asked to have the patent of 1891 set
aside on the ground that the delay OF
13 years in the patent Office was fraud
ulent and through the fault of the tele-
phone company, and that the patent
issued in 1880 covered the same ground
on which the new patent was applied
for in 1891.
The court in it's opinion delivered by
Justice Brewer held that there was no
evidence of corruption or undue infiu-
ence exercised over the patent office
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 whatever delay there had
been was through the fault of the pat
ent Office and by no fault of the COM
pany. Justice Harlan dissented from
the opinion.
The court held that in order to sci
aside patent the government must
establish grounds Of relief as clear anG
satisfactory as it would to set aside 6
land patent. All other allegations O
the government besides that of delay
were overruled. This decision by th'
supreme court sustains the lowe
courts.
With reference to the arguments OF
the subject of the conveyance Of tn
telephone monopoly, the justice SAT-
there was no question that the paten
had expired, but it must be remem
bered that Berliner's rights were indie
pendent from those Of Bell. If ther
should be new invention upon the ex
, piration of the Berliner patent, tn
, rights of it's author could not b
! abridged to relieve the public.
: The case has attracted wide atten
0 tion because of the extensive interest
: involved in its settlement and the opin
? ion of the court has been anxiouslv
. awaited. The suit, it was claimed, In
O volved the practical control of the ar
T. of telephoning. 1t originated in
q charge of collusion in the patent ofic
and was brought to obtain the repea
e and cancellation of letters patent c
r the United States dated November L
il 1891, granted to the American Be-
l. Telephone Co., as assignee of Emil
h Berliner, the alleged inventor.
# The repeal and cancellation of tn
i patent were sought upon the groun
= that the application for it, while filed i
s. 1877, was not issued until 1891. This d.
r. lay was charged to be unnecessary an
n improper on the part of the pater
r Office and the Bell Telephone Co
i which, as Berliner's assignee, col
10 trolled the application. 1t was a
il serted that the company had acquiesce
r. in and promoted the delay and for the
70 own interest, thus defrauding the pu
10 lie of its rights.
1t was claimed that the Berlin
patent practically controls telephon
as it has to do with both the transmi
Id sion and receipt of sound and that Il
e delay thus secured until 1891, operat'
to prolong the control of this act for
u years beyond the time of the expir
tion Of the Bell patent.