The Black Flag - 8

The Black Flag - 8

 "As for Lamp No. 4, I cannot but view it with suspicion. It presents a new appearance.

The reason given for not introducing it before the hearing is unsatisfactory. This lamp, to

my mind, envelops with a cloud of distrust the whole Goebel story. It is simply

impossible under the circumstances to believe that a lamp so constructed could have been

made by Goebel before 1872. Nothing in the evidence warrants such a sup- position, and

other things show it to be untrue. This lamp has a carbon filament, platinum leading-in

wires, a good vacuum, and is well sealed and highly finished. It is said that this lamp

shows no traces of mercury in the bulb because the mercury was distilled, but Goebel

says nothing about distilled mercury in his first affidavit, and twice he speaks of the

particles of mercury clinging to the inside of the chamber, and for that reason he

constructed a Geissler pump after he moved to 468 Grand Street, which was in 1877.

Again, if this lamp has been in his possession since before 1872, as he and his son swear,

why was it not shown to Mr. Crosby, of the American Company, when he visited his

shop in 1881 and was much interested in his lamps? Why was it not shown to Mr. Curtis,

the leading counsel for the defendants in the New York cases, when he was asked to

produce a lamp and promised to do so? Why did not his son take this lamp to Mr. Bull's

office in 1892, when he took the old fiddle-bow lamps, 1, 2, and 3? Why did not his son

take this lamp to Mr. Eaton's office in 1882, when he tried to negotiate the sale of his

father's inventions to the Edison Company? A lamp so constructed and made before 1872

was worth a large sum of money to those interested in defeating the Edison patent like the

American Company, and Goebel was not a rich man. Both he and one of his sons were

employed in 1881 by the American Company. Why did he not show this lamp to

McMahon when he called in the interest of the American Company and talked over the

electrical matters? When Mr. Dreyer tried to organize a company in 1882, and procured

an option from him of all his inventions relating to electric lighting for which $925 was

paid, and when an old lamp of this kind was of vital consequence and would have insured

a fortune, why was it not forthcoming? Mr. Dreyer asked Goebel to produce an old lamp,

and was especially anxious to find one pending his negotiations with the Edison

Company for the sale of Goebel's inventions. Why did he not produce this lamp in his

interviews with Bohm, of the American Company, or Moses, of the Edison Company,

when it was for his interest to do so? The value of such an anticipation of the Edison

lamp was made known to him. He was desirous of realizing upon his inventions. He was

proud of his incandescent lamps, and was pleased to talk about them with anybody who

would listen. Is it conceivable under all these circumstances, that he should have had this

all-important lamp in his possession from 1872 to 1893, and yet no one have heard of it

or seen it except his son? It cannot be said that ignorance of the English language offers

an excuse. He knew English very well although Bohm and Dreyer conversed with him in

German. His children spoke English. Neither his ignorance nor his simplicity prevented

him from taking out three patents: the first in 1865 for a sewing-machine hemmer, and

the last in 1882 for an improvement in incandescent lamps. If he made Lamp No. 4

previous to 1872, why was it not also patented?

"There are other circumstances which throw doubt on this alleged Goebel anticipation.

The suit against the United States Electric Lighting Company was brought in the

Southern District of New York in 1885. Large interests were at stake, and the main

defence to the Edison patent was based on prior inventions. This Goebel claim was then

investigated by the leading counsel for the defence, Mr. Curtis. It was further inquired

into in 1892, in the case against the Sawyer-Man Company. It was brought to the

attention and considered by the Edison Company in 1882. It was at that time known to

the American Company, who hoped by this means to defeat the monopoly under the

Edison patent. Dreyer tried to organize a company for its purchase. Young Goebel tried

to sell it. It must have been known to hundreds of people. And now when the Edison

Company after years of litigation, leaving but a short time for the patent to run, have

obtained a final adjudication establishing its validity, this claim is again resurrected to

defeat the operation of the judgment so obtained. A court in equity should not look with

favor on such a defence. Upon the evidence here presented, I agree with the first

impression of Mr. Curtis and with the opinion of Mr. Dickerson that whatever Goebel did

must be considered as an abandoned experiment.

"It has often been laid down that a meritorious invention is not to be defeated by

something which rests in speculation or experiment, or which is rudimentary or

incomplete.

"The law requires not conjecture, but certainty. It is easy after an important invention has

gone into public use for persons to come forward with claims that they invented the same

thing years before, and to endeavor to establish this by the recollection of witnesses as to

events long past. Such evidence is to be received with great caution, and the presumption

of novelty arising from the grant of the patent is not to be overcome except upon clear

and convincing proof.

"When the defendant company entered upon the manufacture of incandescent lamps in

May, 1891, it well knew the consequences which must follow a favorable decision for the

Edison Company in the New York case."

The injunction was granted.

Other courts took practically the same view of the Goebel story as was taken by Judge

Colt, and the injunctions asked in behalf of the Edison interests were granted on all

applications except one in St. Louis, Missouri, in proceedings instituted against a strong

local concern of that city.

Thus, at the eleventh hour in the life of this important patent, after a long period of costly

litigation, Edison and his associates were compelled to assume the defensive against a

claimant whose utterly baseless pretensions had already been thoroughly investigated and

rejected years before by every interested party, and ultimately, on examination by the

courts, pronounced legally untenable, if not indeed actually fraudulent. Irritating as it was

to be forced into the position of combating a proposition so well known to be

preposterous and insincere, there was nothing else to do but to fight this fabrication with

all the strenuous and deadly earnestness that would have been brought to bear on a really

meritorious defence. Not only did this Goebel episode divert for a long time the energies

of the Edison interests from activities in other directions, but the cost of overcoming the

extravagantly absurd claims ran up into hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Another quotation from Major Eaton is of interest in this connection:

"Now a word about the Goebel case. I took personal charge of running down this man

and his pretensions in the section of the city where he lived and among his old neighbors.

They were a typical East Side lot--ignorant, generally stupid, incapable of long memory,

but ready to oblige a neighbor and to turn an easy dollar by putting a cross-mark at the

bottom of a forthcoming friendly affidavit. I can say in all truth and justice that their

testimony was utterly false, and that the lawyers who took it must have known it.