Clipped From The Cincinnati Enquirer

cruther64 Member Photo

Clipped by cruther64

 - remind of the religion. to the long-as by to...
remind of the religion. to the long-as by to Its in Is fat-making t a CHARACTER Of Government's Suit Against National Cash Register Company Officials Is Question That Judge Hollis-ter Has To Determine. Attorney Intimates That Depart men t of JnsttW Is Trying To Make "Goat" of Corporation. Whether the Government's suit sgsinst the indicted officials of the National Cash Register Company, charging them with conspiracy to restrain trade In cash registers and monopolise the cash register business of the country by unfair methods will continue to be a criminal prosecution or become a patent litigation' is something like the question now facing United States District Judge Hoilleter for solution. The defense wants to Introduce tbe teitl- mony of patent experts and exhibit the various models of N. C. R. and other caah registers to show that an of the basic pat ents on cash registers belong to the National Cash Register Company, and that all of these patents are protected by letters patent from tree Patent Office of tbe United States. The defenai also wanta to show that by virtue of these patents and the rights conferred upon patentees by the patent taws of the United Stairs that if the defendants did do some of the things charawd against them in the Government's Indictment In restraining competition they were given the right to do so by the r st ent laws, which gave to them the exclusive right to make and sell cash registers embodying these Inventions. Admission of Evidence. The admissibility Qf evidence of this character is the question Judge Hollister a-ill be called upon to-day to decide. Most of the afternoon session yesterdar waa taken up with the argument of counsel on this matter, and Attorney McMahon, ef Dayton, representing the defense, was especially Insistent that the defendants had the tight to show these things in explanation of any acta they may have com mitted. In the course of his argument Attorney McMahcn took occasion to intimate that President John H. Patterson and the Na tional Caah Register Company la being made a "goat" of by the Department of Justice st Washington, and that the prose cution of the officials of the National Cash Register Company was incited by enemies of President Patterson. "Why should the United States let off the big men of the Standard Oil. t ie 8uel Trust, the Money Trust (if there be one) and other great corporations who hold the pec pie of this c.untry in the hol'ow of their hands, and come into Ohio and the town of Dnytcn and criminal, y prosecute the head of the model manufacturing plant of the entire world?" McMaht n dunanded. "Why should Lie Government pick on a man who, by his industry, self-denial and self-sacrifice snd great genius, had built up a business which is a credit to the wh le of the United States and acknowledged to be a model of enterprise ? He was a poor lad. All he owned was a little piece nf land left him by his father. Patterson's Start He started In the cash register business with a capital of S5.UUU. He created the machine, and then he created the market for It. Why should he not be entitled to. . ... . ,. k. monopoly of the cah agister bus.ness? ?L 111," !h'nd.'h' Ant cash register machine on the market The patent laws grant exclusive rights why shouldn't be have a monopoly?" Arguments as to tbe admissibility of the record In the ease of tbe X. C. R. Company vs. the Lsmson Consolidated Store Service Compsny were resumed yesterdsy morn ing when Court convened st 10 o'clock. Upon their completion the Court ruled thst the evidence of Infringement suits brought by the National aswlnst tbe concerns whom they afterward purchased was admissible as throwing light on the atate of mind of the defendants In entering Into the contracts whereby they purchased such concerns. Thus ruling was a victory for the defense and It took advantage of It by Introducing proceedings In the cane of the X. ..'. R. Company vs. the Lamson Company. -which was Instituted on October I'l. 1891. snd dismissed on application of the complain ant on June 2S. lsft.1. This suit wss for Infringement of the Lord and, Boyer patents, they being improvements on cash registers. Counsel for the defense then Introduced the original patent papers in the esse and an assignment showing owner ship of them by the X. C, R. Company They also introduced the letters patent In what la known aa the Ritty & Burch and Campbell patents, alao showing ownership or tnem by the is. a. Company. Patent Authority. Following the introduction of this eri. denes James W. See, of Hamilton. Ohio. recognized as one of the greatest patent authorities in the United States. waa placed on tbe stand by the defense. He testified that he was a mechanical engineer, and for some years had acted as a consulting mechanical engineer, with a specialty of patent matters. He stated that be had had long experience In cash register patents, and tnat he had taken out a num. Per or these patents for others. He also stated tnat ne had acted as expert witness for the N. C. R. Company In a number of the Infringement suits brought by It against competing companies At this point in the proceedings the defense had wheeled Into tha courtroom a number of cash registers and for a few minutes the courtroom resembled the famous "model room" at the N. c. R. slant at Dayton. Among these exhibits were two Lamson cssh registers. One of these machines waa tn Its cane, while the other waa not. Its mechanism belna- open to full view. These mschln s. however, remained In tha courtroom for but a short time, as the first question propounded to the witness oy counsel for the defense brought forth aa objection from the Government and tne machines were "wheeled" out sl-moet before they had be-q completely "wheeled" in. Tne QUestlonf objected to wns whether or not the Lamson machine Infringed the Ratty A Burch patent. Assistant District Attorney Moulinier voiced, the objection for the Government and argued that the defendants should not bs permitted to show by expert witnesses st this time that tbe Lamson machine Infringed tha patents. He declared that all that tbe defense could show was what tbe dafendanta had been advised by their attorneys at that time In order to throw light on the contract with the Lamson Company, which waa entered into on March 2 180S.. for the purchase of tbe latter company. An Intangible BighC ' It eras this objection which precipitated tbe argument which continued throughout the afternoon and which will ba resumed this morning .Special Assistant Attorney-General Harrison followed Mr. Moulinier and argued that a patent la simply an Intangible right given by the patent lawa of tha United States to exclude anybody else, from antng In a machine the Idea or dearlea covered by tha patent. Harrison claimed that the patent lawa did not give the right to sell the the selling and the to or ney It sold he to the ply subject an-n that has i I R. is of with D. in a For is the riv land, the has haa has lm To the department Ohio a-aa help atate taxation for the more on ment commission. Tor the to and today Bru-ner. and to the with his will

Clipped from
  1. The Cincinnati Enquirer,
  2. 31 Jan 1913, Fri,
  3. Page 7

cruther64 Member Photo

Want to comment on this Clipping? Sign up for a free account, or sign in