The morning news., 1897-05-13
The Telephone Decision.

The Telephone Decision.
1t cannot be determined just at present
what the effect of the supreme court de-
cision in the Beriner patent case will be
upon the telephone situation. The govern
ment brought suit to annul the patent up
on the ground that the delay Of thirteen
years in granting the patent. which oc-
Cured in the patent Office, was brought
about by fraud. The decision acquits the
Bell company of the charge of fraud, but
whether it goes further and establishes
that company in a monopoly of the tele-
phone business until 1903 is not clear 1t
is claimed by the Bell people that the de-
cision will drive all competing concerns
out of the business, and by the independ-
ent companies it is asserted that their
privileges are still secure, and that they
will go on transmitting messages by tele-
phone.
The Bell company began business with
the patent of Prof. Alexander Graham
Bell, secured in 1876. With the patent Of
Bell alone it would not have been able to
do a great deal. Inventions and patents
of Edison, Blake and Berliner were ac-
for the Berliner patent was filed in 1877
Had it been granted at or about that
time it would have run out shortly after
the time of the expiration of the Bell
patent, and both the Bel and the Ber-
liner apparatus would have become public
property. There is a similarity between
the apparatus covered by the two patents
and it has been alleged that they embody
the same principle. The Berliner patent,
however was delayed in the patent office
from 1877 until 1891, so that about the
time the Bell patent expired the Berliner
patent came into force, with the effect
of continuing the Bell company's monop-
oily of the telephone business for the full
length of time the Berliner patent had to
run. The government suspected that the
holding up of the Berliner patent for so
long a time had been procured by fraud,
for the purpose of prolonging the life of
the monopoly and upon that ground
brought suit to set the patent aside
The court says that the Bell company
was not at fault; that it neither prac-
ticed fraud nor bribery, so far as was dis
exhaustive. If the delay was the fault
Of the patent office, the company could
not be held responsible for it. The court
therefore, found that the Berliner patent
could not be set aside on the ground that
it had been fraudulently manipulated.
There seems to be no room for doubt
that the patent Office was seriously at
fault" It is to be expected that some
delay should occur between the filing of
an application for a patent and the grant
Ing of it, A year. or two years, or even
three years, might be a reasonable de-
lay in an extraordinary and complicated
case. But when the delay stretches over
a period Of thirteen years, and involves
profits Of millions of dollars to a mo-
nopoly' 1t becomes quite evident that there
is serious fault" somewhere. The de-
cision of the court is clear and conch
sive as to its correctness under the law.
1t makes clear, also, the fact that the
law with regard to patents is not what It
ought to be. 1t was never contemplated
that the patent laws should give unrea-
sonably long monopoIies to the owners of
A4iS Pun poSS u pat
ents is to protect and encourage invent
ors, not monopolies. In the case under
consideration, however inventors of tele-
phonic appliances are not encouraged.
They must sell to the monopoly, or have
no market at all.
What the effect Of the decision upon
competing enterprises will be will have
to be determined by test cases in the
courts. 1t is not probable that the test
will be long delayed. 1t is understood that
the Bell company has already mapped out
plan of procedure, involving injunction
suits against established telephone ex-
changes and suits for infringement
against manufacturers OF telephone lnstru-
ments.