Democratic Sentinel, Volume 8, Number 6, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 March 1884 — A MONOPOLY BEATEN. [ARTICLE]

A MONOPOLY BEATEN.

The Protected Barb-Wire Litl tion in lowa. Another Decision Against the W horn ft Moen Company. [Keokuk Dispatch.] Judge McCrary rendered final decrei the two suits brought by the Washbu Moen. Company against Walter and J Rhodes for the infringement respective the reissued Glidden and Kelley barbed patents. The decrees in these two case ply to eight lowa salts in all, in whicl Bame l issues are involved. The decre the Glidden reissued patent declares invalid and of no effect, becaus is tbe same invention described in original patent, and secured because claim of the reissued patents was unlaw expanded, and there was undue dela applying for said reissue. Complain bill was therefore dismissed and defenc have the right to recover their oosts. In the suit involving thp Kelley pat< was held that the fourth claim of th Issued patent was invalid for the same sons stated in the first case, and the < found for the defendants upon the issi infringement made in the pleadings, same order was made concerning costs dismissal of the bill. , The Washburn & Moen represents say the next fight will be on the ori| Glidden patent. Same of the lowa casei likely to be carried to the United State preme Court. HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION. Plain or nnbarbed wire had been in quite eral use for fencing throughout the Wei some years before barbed wire began to be 1 in a small way under patents taken out as as 1868 by Kelley and 1874 by Glidden.and o not so well known. Between iB6O and 1876 were fully thirty different patents grants various patties on barbed-wire fences. Bn business was in its infancy. Few realized it was to become in half-a-dozen years. Oi these few was Mr. Washburn, of Woroester.l He conceived the idea of buying up all th portant patents and making a great monop In February, 1876, Washburn <fc Moenobtt their subsequently famous “reissues" of Kelley and Glidden patents. The reissuin; ingenious. In this new form the patents tabled and claimed much more than the inals. Under these reissues the Worcester set up its so-called “broad claim.” It helc the patents gave it control of the principU barbed-wire fence, no matter by whatdevit wire had been prepared. Having securet patents, having had them reissued with new and sweeping claims, the next step w secure a decision from the courts sub fa them. This was not gained for se years. Meanwhile the business had £ enormously. Thriving wire factories grown up everywhere in the We States, competing with the large Ea establishments. The business was entirely Makers knew little about the patents, cared and were not interfered with. But Wash <fe Moen were quietly at work. In Novel 1880, they gained their famous case in the U States Circuit Court at Chicago. Judges D mond and Blodgett deciding that the re-ii patents were va|jd and in full force. The barb-wire business was brought to a halt by this decision. Every man in the < try making, selling, or using barb-wire liable to suit for infringement, and mannfa ers were liable to pay ruihous back royaltie this state of affairs Mr. Washburn and his a neys summoned the principal manufacture the country to meet them for a grand si ment. They came together in Chicago in ruary, 1881, three months after the dec Washburn was in a position to dictate t< and each maker took the best be could About forty firms were licensed to con the business, each being limited as to the ai tonnage of its output and each being assei certain sum, larger or smaller, for back ages. Mr. Washburn and his licensees at same meeting fixed upon a certain prio wire, no licensee being allowed to 'unde The price of wire to consumers was advano the monopoly about S4O above the recent rent price (raising the wholesale price about 6 cents to about 8 cents per po Washburn <t Moen’s royalty was sls pel Small makers were not licensed, and we crushed out. Such, then, was the little mi oly which from February, 1881, to the pr time has added somewhat more than SIO,O extra profit to the price of wire sold farme half-a-dozen Western and Northwestern Si lowa, being much the largest consumer, fe burden heaviest. The farmers of that formed a "protective association.” They s an establishment in Des Moines for ms "moonshine” wire, and prepared themselv fight the matter through thexourts. ' Meanwhile the Supreme Court, of the U States had indirectly struck a blow at th« nopoly by its decision on the subject of reis patents in the celebrated case of "Miller vs Brass Company." In this case a new and v ble doctrine was laid down. There had a among a certain class of Eastern capital very corrupt and pernicious practice in matter of patents. If this article or comm began to come into the markets, they h practice of rummaging among old and 1 • doned patents until they found somethii some wise relating to the now popular modity. Of course this old patent coni bought up for a song. They would then hi “reissued” and so broadened and strength as to make it valuable and to give them'* nopolizing power over the commodity. II to check this dangerous practice that tip preme Court laid down in the case of “Mill! The Brass Company" a set of new and strir rules governing the reissue of patents. The new doctrine threw a cloud over the den and Kelley barbed-wire patents anc Chicago Drummond-Blodgett decision. It the lowa farmers their basis for a Under the countenance of the Fan Association several other “moonshining” f ries arose and grew like mushrooms into business by their ability to undersell the nopolists. Washburn & Moen entered and petitions against all these moonshi Instead of oarrylng tbe suits against the far through the courts the monopolists, it charged, bought up the Des Moines mam turer, who was tl e agent for the Farmers’. brunt of the fight on the “1 claim” was borne by the Grinnell Wire < pany. A decision was made by United S Judges McCrary, Love, and Treat in she Cl Court for the Southern District of lowa in 1883, that the Kelley and Glidden reissued ents were invalid. This decision has now affirmed in the Rhodes cases.]