New-York tribune., 1905-04-24
WIRELESS TELEGRAPH LITIGATION.

Approaching the interest which is felt in the
wireless telegraph suit recently decided in the
United States Circuit Court for Southern New
York. The Electrical World and Engineer"
prints full abstract of Judge TownSend's re-
cent decision The original Marconi patent is
dated July Il, 1897. but another. describing
slightly amended system was issued in June
1901. The second is known as a reissue and
the suit tested its validity at a few points. Of
the tifty-siX claims of the patent the violation
of six imputed TO the De Forest company
Regarding four the complaint was not sustained
Claim l was overruled because it's phraSeOlOgy
was broad enough to include forms of cOhPreT
used by Branly and POpOff. and was not linn
tied TO the one perfected by MarcOni. Claims
and 10 also relate to a receiver of the same
type-a tube in which solid particles are en-
closed in imperfect electrical contact" The
De Forest company satisfied the court that it
employed different kind of receiver, and it
was decided that there had been no infringe
ment Of the MarcOni company's rights Claim
24 Of the reissue describes tuned conductor" ="
but the defendant showed that it did not employ
such a thing, and the complaint on that point
was also dismissed
The claims which were upheld are numbered
and , in the patent, and cover the use of an
tennT. or upright wires. The language of the
two is nearly identical, but one covers a com
binatiOn that includes a device known as
choking coil In the patent the word "insu-
lated" appears before the words elevated CON
ductor"; and counsel for the De Forest conf
pany are said to regard ii as n big loophole rep
resenting that it might permit the use of Pr!al
wires that were not insulated. Judge Town
send however was satisfied that Marconi was
the first person to devise and put in operation
a practical system Of wireless teIegraphy He
held. therefore. that, however the word "insll-
lated might he interpreted the infringement
rested upon the fact that the Marconi apparatus
is a primary invention" and "as SUCH is enti-
tied to a broader range of equivalents so as TO
prevent the appropriation of its substance by
"a mere change of form"
The decision regarding the coherer will prob
ably have little practical effect or cause much
surprise. Several other forms of receiver have
been invented and a monopoly of the right to
use devices in which there was an imperfect
electrical contact would seem to be Of little
value. Marconi himself has secured much more
satisfactory results from his magnetic detecter
than from the improved form of BranIy's in
StTument. As for the vertical wire, that seems
to be an essential feature Of all systems IL
Marconi aud those to whom he has disDosed OF
his rights in the United States are TO enjoy the
exclusive privilege of using the upright wire
they will have occasion for profound satisfac-
ton. The public will now feel little curiosity
as 10 the course which the De Forest cOuDanv
Will pursue in reference to Judge TOwnsend's :
decision regarding Claims 3 and = of the Mar
conf patent. Will it appeal. or will it seek 70
escape the injunction by substituting An min
Sulated conductor for its other upright wire?