Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1910-02-09
INDIANAPOLIS CONCERN MEN,
ACES COUNTIES AND CITIES
USING CONCRETE.
CLAIMS PATENTS COVERING
REINFORCED CONSTRUCTION
Council Bluffs Official. Served With
Notice Of Suit for Infringement
Claims City and County Officials
Are Personally Liable for Damages
Attorney Says It's a Bluff.
Special to Times-Republican.

NPOSAcAA " l1IAcS.ItcpuDllCaOs
Council Bluffs, Feb. s.-Is the Ma
tional Bridge Company of Indianapolis,
Ind, in a position to demand~a ROYALTY
from every city or county using en-
forced concrete work in building
bridges? Or, is their notice to the city
of Council Bluffs that suit is to be in
stituted to collect royalties demanded
OF this city bluff? Upon the answer
to either of these questions rests a
matter of great importance to cities
and counties everywhere.
The bridge company claims that the
city of Council Bluffs owes 1t a con-
siderable sum for infringement and
various opinions are entertained by city
officials regarding the validity Of this
claim. The majority believe that it is
big bluff and are inclined to treat the
matter lightly. If royalties can be COL
lected either the city or the aldermen
personally will have to pay them.
Shortly after the first notice from the
bridge company, demanding settlement
for use of patents held by them, in a
special meeting the council voted to as
A'NAAAS xii I1AO ICSpO4lSlOlIily LIZ use VI
the patents and absolve the contractors
from liability.
Alderman Olson is inclined to take
has asked the city solicitor to prepare
an opinion on the matter. Alderman
Jensen, who is contractor, is inclined
to call it a bluff and to meet it in the
same spirit. He says that he is willing
To u;
that each member should be held per-
sonally liable for his pro rata share
of the royalty should the courts decree
it is due the bridge company. Alder
man Rigdon is of the same opinion.
Attorney Says Bluff.
'1t is one grand bluff" said City En-
grounds for royalties, Whatever. They
are simply trying to bluff the cities
who have been building enforced con-
crete bridges into paying them royal
ties and IN my opinion the city that
submits to their demands merely makes
the bridge company a present of the
money. I do not believe that a single
one of their patents would hold in court
II the matter came to a trial. If the
claims they make are good 1t would be
impossible to put a piece of metal in
concrete without infringing on one of
their patents. I would fight them to
the last"
In submitting their demands for pay
ment of royalties the bridge company
cites the patent law, as follows:
"a patent granted by the United
States government gives its owner the
exclusive right( without any exceptions
-, %~
the structure covered by the patent. If
one of these claims be infringed the
owner of the patent may collect royalty
and costs in a suit for injunction. If
it be shown that the infringement was
knowingly made, punitive damages to
the amount of three times the actual
damages proved, may be assessed by
the court. Notification by registered
letter citing the patent numbers and
dates of issue is sufficient to entitle the
owner Of the patent to punitive dam
ages.
IF judgment can not be collected
from a municipality, county or town,
as, for example, when board refuses
to settle for infringement, by their pre-
decessors in office, a Judgment may be
against the individual Off
GERS VINO duCQOrlZeO the infringement
and their private property sold on
execution to satisfy the judgment.
can injunction may Issue before
or after the infringement is complete. |
If two or more parties infringe in the
same structure, as when a contractor
builds for municipality on +. designs
furnished by an engineer, the owner of
hep atent may elect which OF the three
ne shall prosecute, the engineer of the !,
or the contractor. None !
If the three can acquire or transfer |
my right to use the patented device
except from the owner of the patent"
The circular is accompanied by the |
statement that the fifteen patents held
" the company contain 29S claims,
Ind the supposition is that It will be |
y to build an enforced con-
.rete structure without infringing on |
;ome of the claims contained in the
PATENTS.
If the indianapolis company is MAX
ng a bluff it is q strong one and leaves
10 room for escape.
OUT OF THE WOODS.
1