Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1913-09-18
CONCRETE BRIDGE MONOPOLY.
waterloo Courier

There is soon 10 be fought out in
the federal courts at Des Moines d
legal battle TO save the people of Iowa
a quarter of a million dollars annually
in expenses and vaster sums in the
future, and incidentally to effect ma
terial saving 20 the people OF every
state. In the suit will be involved as
plaintiffs the people OF the state of
Iowa on one side and the patent laws
OF the United States on the other.
Governor Clarke, acting under special
authority granted by the legislature,
has directed the state OF Iowa 10 APP
pear as an in;ervenor in the bridge
patent suits and the attorney general
- defend on behalf OF the people of
the state. II Iowa wins il will be one
of the biggest things in connection
with bridge construction in recent
years: Il Iowa loses it means an i'm
mense added expense for man. years
for road and bridge work. Thus far
Iowa Is the only state of the union
where there has been inteNiSeHtiy d
rected public effort to find out what
is in the so-csiled Luton patents on
bridge construction. Yet it is stated
that other states are similarly affected
and that the royalties are exacted else
where as we'll as in Iowa. But since it
has become publicly known that Iowa
has engaged for a battle to the finish
with a gigantic patent protected mon
opoly the inquiries have come from
other states in the game. The patents
cover methods Of construction. design
Of bridges. material used. etc. There
are TWENTY-FIVE Of the patents. inc
: inventors nave evidently found a fer
tile field and have patented everything
that could be used in connection VIII
the making of concrete culVerfs anu
bridges. large or small, and as nobods
else was engaged in patenting THESE
devices nothing stood in the way OF
getting all the patents applied lot. bu'
| I. is said that the methods wnich nave
been patented were In fact IN omHloI
use prior TO the issuance OF the patents
in 1902: and If this Is true tnen the
patents will not hold, for oe'lce
method. system or principle commonly
known and in use Is not patentapie. IL
always remains for some one 10 sHo"
this fact. as the patent ONCE, IN the
absence of objection, assumes mat e'
erytfing offered is new ana patentapie
The only way 70 beat the Luton pat
ents Is to show that there was noth
| ing new or novel in them. AS the USE
OF concrete in bridge construction de-
veloped in some of the older states II
will be there that the evidence Is Sc
! cured, e g: aM. tcr breaking fne pat
ents. The holders Of the Luton pat
ents. who live in indianapolis. exact
| 10 per cent royalty on all bridges con
structed under ;?:.e.: ds:-.ce- They ee'
10 per cent Of the cost OF eacn Driose
or culvert. There are anywhere IRON
Ave 70 six million dollars worth o.
bridges built annually in Iowa, whicf
includes county and city bridges. II
royalty Is paid on half OF these IL
a quarter million dollars year Gus 9
the taxpayers Of Iowa. Most OF tn'
small concrete bridges pay the royalty
| The present suit is one brought Dy TN
holders of the patent to restrain
{ bridge company from constructHs
bridge at Albert Lea, Mimi, wltnou
paying the royalty. Iowa gets into TN