Arizona republican., 1921-03-13
n order to avoid inconvenience and

in order to avoid inconvenience and litigation
 For example, the most difficult op- staele to surmount in this Barber suit was the fact that a prominent auto mobile manufacturer against which Barber had brought suit prior to his attack on Rec, settled for s4O00 and thereby gave tacit recognition to the validity of Barber's ridiculous claims.
 That, in their earlier decisions, the lower courts must have been influ- enced by this, we felt sure.
 That this mans claims were ridic- uIous. and that only by dstorting them beyond reason could they be made to apply to the Rec Motor, any engineer will agree.
 The honest engineer finds 1t diff cult to protect himself when. in his daily efforts to develop newer and better ways of doing things, he occa- sionally succeeds.
 ''The most careful search of the rec ords of the patent office fails to show him anything that he is infringing any prior invention-for how can he know that claim which was palpably intended to cover something remote may be distorted to cover his own work?
 He cannot. of course ascertain what applications are being held up with claims amended to cover that which he has just developed, and which will be withheld until such time as thousands of his cars are in the hands of users. so that the royalties then claimed will run. as in the cases mentioned, into the millions. of dollars.
 We in the automobile industry find ourselves constantly confronted by this menace, that, after adopting our latest discoveries and improvements. some one representing some pretended in ventor of whom we have never heard, and who has no connection with the industry will come along with a set of claims, and a demand for millions, brandishing a club labeled Injunction
 This case could have been settled for a comparatively nominal sum. as the case against the other manufac- turer was.
 But as a matter of principle and in the interest of the industry in gen. eral, it was determined to fight this through to a. finish.
 This victory though long deferred, was complete when it did come: for not only did the higher court declare that the Reo construction did not in fringe Barber's patent-but that he had no patent.
 Priority of invention was shown not only in one, but in several instances.
 Tn legal terms the case may be summed up as follows for the benefit technical phase of this famouse liti- gation:
 'In 1915 one. William Barber, alleg- ing an infringement on his patent for valve gear by the Rec mechanism, brought suit against the Otis Motor Sales company, Rec distributor at Utica. New York, and won the case
 I1. claimed the decree of the federal court of that district was also binding upon the home corporation at Lansing, Michigan.
 That decree was affirmed by the United States circuit court of appeals which, except in rare instances, is the court of last resort in patent cases.
 Not content with this double vic tory, Barber then started suit against the Rec Motor Car company Qnc.) of New York evidently thinking it the parent concern, whereas it is separ- ate and only a sales organization In this case he sought an injunction against the exhibition of Rec cars at the New York automobile show in 1917, the suit being filed just prior to the opening of the show.
 At about the same time a similar suit was commenced in the federal courts of Michigan against the Rec Motor Car company, Lansing-the manufacturer.
 Tn these steps Barber made his mis- take, for the New York City suit was decided against him and the Michigan suit was deferred pending the outcome of the litigation in the east. Although the claims made by Barber in all these suits were the same, the defense in the New York case was along an en- tirely different line from that in the Utica case. In view of the apparent conflict between two federal courts in New York state, the court of appeals, upon request of the defendants, sent che Utica case back for a new trial.
 The new trial occurred January, 1918. and some two years later, in May 1920. the federal court at Utica again sustained the Barber patent.
 The defendant again appealed. and