Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1897-05-11
WILL HAVE A TELEPHONE MONoPO-
LY FIFTEEN YEARS YET.
SUPREME COURT DECIDES 1T
REFUSES TO SET ASIDE THE BER-
LINER PATENT OF 1895.
United states Sued for Annulment on
the Ground That There Was
Fraudulent Delay Merely to
Proiong the Telephone
Monopoly.

Washington, May 1O.-The Bell Telephone
Company has won the case brought against
it by the United States to annul the last
Bcrliner patent. The decision has the ef-
feet of continuing the control of the tele-
phone by the Bell company for seventeen
years from the date of the last patent,
which was granted in lS91
The government asked to have the patent
of 1885 set aside on the ground that the de-
lay of thirteen years in the patent office
was fraudulent and through the fault of
the telephone company, and that the pat
ent issued in 1880 covered the same ground
on which the new patent was applied Tor
in 1891
The court in its opinion, delivered by
Justice Brewer, held that there was no evil
dence of corruption or undue influence eX-
ercised over the patent office by the teie-
phone company, and that there was no
evidence that the delay in granting the pat
ent had been brought about by the COM
pany. 1t held that whatever delay there
had been was through the fault of the pat
ent office and by no fault of the company.
Justice Harlan dissented from the opin-
ion. Justices Gray and Brown, it was an
nounced, took no part in the case, presum-
ably because they were interested.
This decision by the supreme court sus-
tains the lower courts. The case has at
tensive interests involved in its settlement
and the opinion of the court has been anx-
iously awaited.
With reference to the arguments on the
subject of the continuance of the telephone
monopoly, Justice Brewer repeated that
there was no question that Bells patent
had expired, but it must be remembered
that Berlner's rights We're independent
from those of Bell. If there should be
new invention upon the expiration of the
Berliner patent the rights of its author
could not be abridged to relieve the public.
The inventor of the latest addition is en-
titled to full protection, and If the telephone
company buys the invention it is entitled
to all the rights which the inventor had.
The court, he says, dissented entirely from
the views urged by counsel that the appli-
cant for a patent was quasi trustee for
the public, but held that an invention was
the absolute property of its inventor.
Remarking upon another feature of the
case, the justice said that, taking into con-
sideration the influences under which the
suit was started, there were indications
that the purpose of striking down the pat
ent was to give value to others, and that
private competitors of the Bell company
were seeking to inspire a rival not for the
public good, but for the promotion of their
own interests.
The suit, 1t was claimed, involved the
practical control of the art of telephoning.
1t originated in a charge of collusion in
the patent office and was brought to OBJ
tain the repeal and cancellation of letters
patent of the United States, No. 463, $50,
dated November II, 1891, granted to the
American Bell Telephone Company, as as
sigrees of Emile Berliner. the alleged m
veEtor. The repeal and cancellation CT the
patent were sought upon the ground that
the application for it, while filed in 1871,
was not issued until 1891. This delay was
charged to be unnecessary and improper
on the part of the patent office and the
Bell Telephone Company. which, as Ber-
lirer's assignee, controlled the application.
1t was asserted that the company had ac-
quiesced in and promoted the delay in
their own interest, thus defraudinS the
public of its rights. 1t was claimed that
the Berliner patent practically controls
telephony as it has to do with both the
transmission and receipt of sound, and
that the delay thus secured until 1891, oper-
ated to prolong the control of this act for
fifteen years beyond the time of the ex-
piration of the Bell patent.
1t was also asserted that the patent was
granted by the commissioner of patents
without authority of law, and that it was
for the same invention for which a patent
had been granted in 1890, and the principal
was. therefore, not new. The suit originat-
ed in the United States circuit court for the
district of Massachusetts, where it was de-
c.ded in favor of the United States. Upon
appeal to the circuit court of appeals for
the First circuit, this decision was reversed
and the contentious of the Berliner claim
ants upheld From this opinion, the
United States appealed to the supreme
court.