Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-02-28
REI1>ER PATENT INVALID.
Bell Telephone Company Loses Title
to MicrophOne Attachment.

TO Microphone Attachment.
Judge Brown of the United States circuit
court in Boston, has decided against the
American Bell Telephone Company In the
famous Berliner patent case
The suits were the Bell Company against
the National Telephone Manufacturing
Cnnnanv and same against the Century
Telephone Company, brought to restrain re-
spondents from selling, using or making TEL
ephones or telephone apparatus with the
n,icrophone attachment and to account to
the Bell Company for past use, manufac-
ture and sales, upon the ground that suan
use, manufacture or sale was all illliihse-
ment of patent.
The cases were argued before Judge
Brown a year and a half ago. and as they
related to the same patent-the microphons
were put in together, and were trleu as IL
they were one case.
The Berliner patent is considered one or
the most important held by the Ben Com
pany, and does not expire until November
H. 1908 The patent is the same one that
has been before the courts in the United
States vs. Bell Telephone Company, where
it was held that the patent was not invalid
on account of delay at the patent ofh"e-
The whole case turns upon the validity OF
this patent, the defense setting up, among
other things, the invalidity of the patent,
its lack Of invention, anticipation, ana non
patentability.
made from the decision, and that it will be
carried to the United States Supreme Court
upon this appeal.
The Effect of the Decision.
Judge R. 8. Taylor. who conducted the
defense for the Independent companies, in
an interview in Fort Wayne. Ind. last
night, said regarding the effect of the de-
cision:
THE decision made in Boston today is
In two suits brought by the telephone COM
pany against Independent manufacturers Of
telephones upon patent granted to Emile
Berliner November II, 1891.
The patent covers in the broadest terms,
what is known as the microphone form of
telephone tranSmitter in universal use. 1t
differs from the form of transmitter in
vented by Bell and described in his patent
of 1876, and in an improved form in his
patent of 1877.
THE microphone was introduced into use
as the invention Of Thomas A. Edison in
1878. During that year an interference in
the patent office, to which there were
great number of parties, disclosed the fact
that Emile Berliner had in the office an ap-
plication filed In June, 1877. in which could
be perceived by the Bell eompanys exper 8
some suggestions which by suitable altera-~
lions and expansion could be made to cover
the idea of the microphone-
THE Bell company bought the applica-
ton; then kept 1t in the patent Office until
1891 when it took out the present patent. :
II do not know of any successful trans
mitter in use which does not come within
the terms of this patent. 1t does not expire
until 1908.
1.-The hope of the Bell company has been
to perpetuate its monopoly by means Of this
patent. 1t is undoubtedly being infringed
by hundreds of thousands of telephones In
daily use in Independent exchanges.
"If the patent had been sustained the con-
sternation and confusion which would have
been created would have been without pre-
cedent in the country. OF course, the de-
PENDANTS would have appeafed, and It would
decision could have been had in the court
of appeals in that circuit. And then the
question would have been open to litigation
in other circuits, so that the Independent
companies would not have been prepared to
give in, even If they had lost this case on
this trial.
But it would have been a great setback
my associate that the opinion of the court
sustains the first, second. third, fourth and
fifth defenSes completely.
such decision destroys the patent, root
and branch"
Views of q Stakeholder.
One of the prominent stockholders of the
Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Com
pany. which is controlled by the Ben Com
pany, was asked today by reporter of The
Star as to what, in his opinion, was the eff
feet of the decision. He said:
"An appeal will, of course, be taken In
this case to the higher courts. The Bell
Company would naturally have preferred
decision in its favor. But It should be borne
in mind that the telephone business no long
classes of business, on the excellence OF the
service rendered this daciSi0u is