Edison Electric Light Co. v. Columbia Incandescent Lamp Co.

• Decision Date: 21 April 1893
• Docket Number: 3,707.
• Citation: 56 F. 496
• Parties: EDISON ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. et al. v. COLUMBIA INCANDESCENT LAMP CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

56 F. 496

EDISON ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. et al. v. COLUMBIA INCANDESCENT LAMP CO. et al.

No. 3,707.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

April 21, 1893

Henry Hitchcock, (F. P. Fish, C. A. Seward, and R. N. Dyer, of counsel,) for complainants.

Boyle &amp Adams and Fowler & Fowler, (Witter & Kenyon, of counsel,) for defendants.

HALLETT District Judge.

Complainants allege infringement of letters patent No. 223,898, issued to Thomas A. Edison January 27, 1880, for an improved electric lamp. This patent came under the consideration of the circuit court of the southern district of New York in the case of Edison Electric Light Co. v. United States Electric Lighting Co., 47 F. 454, and was held to be for a lamp 'consisting essentially of a filamentary carbon burner hermetically sealed in a glass vacuum chamber.' So understood, it is the incandescent lamp in common use, and no question is presented in this record as to the character of respondents' manufacture. The defense to the bill and to the motion for preliminary injunction now under consideration is want of novelty in the Edison patent. Respondents aver that an incandescent lamp different in form, but in all essential features the same as that now in general use, was made as early as 1854 by Henry Goebel, of New York city, and that it was used by him in various ways and at different times, for many years thereafter. It will not be necessary to describe this lamp at length, as it has the same constituents as the Edison lamp. We are at present more concerned with the struggle between the contending forces, on the one side to maintain, and on the other to disprove, the existence and use of the lamp anterior to the date of the Edison invention. A large mass of testimony, in the form of affidavits, is offered by each party on the question of fact, which, to consider at length, would be a tiresome and unprofitable task.

The principal objection urged by complainants against the Goebel invention is that it has an impossible date; no man could make it in the time and manner assigned to it; the incandescent lamp is the product of several auxiliary arts, not likely to fall within the compass of a single mind; as an achievement of science, the lamp is a matter of progessive steps, some of which must be made by the world at large, before others can be taken by any one. This is no more than to say that no man can outrun his competitors to any great length in the field of scientific investigation,--a proposition which has no support in reason or experience. There seems to be no reason for saying that Goebel could not reach in 1854 the point attained by Edison in 1879, unless, as was said by the dissenting justices in the telephone cases, 'it is regarded as incredible that so great a discovery should have been made by the plain mechanic, and not by an eminent scientist and inventor.'

In so far, however, as it may be shown that the methods adopted by Goebel were not equal to the results obtained, the evidence should receive the most careful consideration. On this point it appears that Goebel has recently made several lamps of the form and with the material and tools formerly used by him. These lamps were tested by men of skill and experience in such matters, and they were found to be reasonably effective. They are not so good as the lamps in common use, but they can be operated, and they give reasonable service in time and capacity of light. So that in this way we have prima facie proof of Goebel's ability to make lamps in the way he claims to have made them before the time of Edison's invention.

It is said that Goebel is involved in contradictions and misstatements of fact, due to the lapsing memory of old age, or to untruthfulness. Be it so. He does not appear to be an adventurer or an impostor. It is not reasonable to believe that he made the story related in his affidavit, and did not make the lamp he has described. Whatever may be said as to Goebel's veracity, he is supported at many points by witnesses of good repute, who speak with precision, and apparently with deliberation.

As already suggested, it is not necessary or profitable to go over the testimony at length, with a view to determine the relative value and weight of every part. It is enough to say that there is a fair preponderance of testimony in support of the Goebel claim.

There is not the measure of proof demanded by complainants'...