Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 71.djvu/444

438 against an infringing company, stated that

this is a case in which an injunction must issue, beyond any sort of doubt. The questions upon the merits, for the purpose of preliminary injunction, have been already disposed of in the Pennsylvania and New Jersey cases,

In June, 1885, Judge Wallace, in deciding that the Molecular Company had infringed "all the claims" of the Bell patent, stated:

After Bell has pointed out the way, it may now be seen to be a simple thing to introduce his method into the Reis apparatus. Some of the experts have doubtless convinced themselves that these modifications of the Reis apparatus do not involve any difference in the principle of the apparatus. It is too late to accept this theory after the lapse of so many years of fruitless experiment with the method of Reis, as originally suggested by Bourseul, and with the apparatus of Reis, as modified by various experimentalists down to the time of the promulgation of Bell's method. It seems impossible to escape the conviction that had the speaking telephone been left where it was left by Reis, and by those who endeavored to develop and perfect his theory, it would only have realized the speculations of Bourseul.

In July, 1885, Judges McKennan and Acheson, in the Circuit Court of the United States, Western District of Pennsylvania, in allowing an injunction stated

that while this country has been agitated for several years past by litigation about this Bell telephone, and while there were decisions in the courts, at any rate in Massachusetts and in New York, and in this circuit, these defendants, with the knowledge of all these decisions, have entered upon a course of infringement of the rights of these complainants, that have been passed upon by the courts. . . . If these people, believing that they had a right to do it, without any decision of the Court, and without any notice whatever from the party whose rights they sought to appropriate, had commenced this business, it might be said with some sort of claim of equity, that they had been misled, and that therefore, they ought not to be stopped by an injunction where such injunctions would subject them to loss which they did not expect. That is not the case here as I have said several times. They have invited this controversy. They have stood up and said to Bell, "You are not the inventor of this thing, and we are going on in defiance of the patent which has been granted by the Government, and in defiance of the decisions of the Courts sustaining it." Now, that is just the aspect of the case, and I know of no rule by which the Court has heretofore been governed in the disposition of motions of this kind, which would justify us, for one moment, in treating these defendants with special favor, even independent of the decisions of the Circuit Courts. The injunction is allowed.

In December, 1885, Judge Wallace said:

Since the decision of this case in December last, additional proofs have been taken on the part of the defendants (The People's Telephone Co.) and by consent of complainants, have been presented for the further consideration of the Court after argument of counsel. All the new evidence is cumulative merely. Such as consists of the testimony of new witnesses to knowledge of the existence of Drawbaugh's talking machine prior to the date of the Bell patent, is far less persuasive than much which has already been considered and rejected as incredible. . . . The legitimate effect of the evidence is to show that Drawbaugh was very near the realization of the invention, if he had really constructed instruments like the exhibits F, B and C, prior to the date of Bell's patent. It does not, however, alter the fact that he was unable to make such instruments at a period long subsequent to the time when he claims to have made them; and in view of this fact the evidence does not tend to materially fortify the testimony of the witnesses, who think, or profess to think, that they heard, or saw efficient practical instruments in operation at Drawbaugh's shop on the occasions to which they refer. The conclusions which were reached at the former hearing have not been modified and the decree ordered should not be disturbed.