268 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Apr. 1. 



Since Lang-st roth was robbed, a patent court of 

 equity has been established. This was done in 1870. 



The establishment of that court enables you, my 

 rambling brother bee-keeper, to make a much bet- 

 ter guess as to howl shall come out when I am 

 compelled to defend my natural rights in United 

 States courts than could a judge on tlie United 

 States supreme bench, who was not acquainted with 

 the state of the art to which my invention belongs. 

 The patent court of equity gives unto Cfesar the 

 things which are Caesar's. We have no dispute 

 about the ownership of what the state of our art 

 sliows through its literature and otherwise, as was 

 brought forward by me. 



The divisible brood-chamber, with its collateral 

 functions, was constructed especially to carry out a 

 new system of management, neither one of which 

 was known before the issuance of my patent. I 

 have none, nor could I have a patent on any partic- 

 ular depth, length, or capacity of a frame or brood- 

 chamber. My patent covers a divisible brood- 

 chamber, xised as and for the purposes specified in 

 said patent. These purposes specified are the same 

 as have been time and again written in bee-jour- 

 nals, my circulars, and book. There is no mistaking 

 it, and no getting around it. In Langstroth's time, 

 a popular method of deceiving the public was to 

 procure a hive-patent on some minor or inconse- 

 quential feature which the claims covered, while 

 the specifications (of wliich the drawings form a 

 part) showed the essential feaiures of father Lang- 

 stroth's valuable patented invention. The unedu- 

 cated public supposed it liad a right to use the 

 "patented hives," just as illustrated in the 

 Jones, Smith, or Brown patents; but no such thing 

 is true. They procured the right to use only what 

 was claimed in the claims in these worthless patents, 

 the patent office presupposing that Jones, Smith, 

 and Brown would purchase of Mr. Langstroth the 

 right to use his invention before they would use or 

 sell their own. It is as though I had invented a 

 bundle-carrier for a McCormick reaper. Before my 

 invention is available, I must procure a right of 

 Mr. McCormick, or sell my invention to him for 

 what I can get for it. A patented machine or man- 

 ufacture may infringe some other patent just as 

 much as one that is not patented; rememl)er that. 

 Also, please remember that a patent is not property, 

 but an attempt to give a title to property. 



One writer has asked me why I don't begin prose- 

 cution against Mr. Dauzenbaker. Why should I 

 make haste ? In most cases it is much cheaper and 

 better for me to begin suit against his customers; 

 but why make haste ? Every one infringing my 

 patent is liable, and the law gives me six j'ears after 

 the expiration of my patent, or until 11(08, to collect 

 royalty from all who infringe. There is no hurry; 

 nearly all bee-keepers are fairly well intoimed, and 

 it is rarely that one would make, use, or sell the 

 Danzenbaker hive without knowing he was infring- 

 ing, as certainly as Mr. Martin, the reader, and our- 

 selves know it. It is, perhaps, a fact that we have 

 done too little in the direction of introducing the 

 new hive to the public. 



Bee-keepers have been so writing us ever since 

 our last issue of The Quarterly containing the more 

 complete directions for properly making and using 

 tlie; hive, written by a thoroughly honest and un- 

 biased friend. So far as our financial interest is 

 concerned, which is by no means the paramount 

 one, we have been in no hurry, knowing that time 



would bring the truth uppermost, and feeling whol- 

 ly secure in our patents. 



There is also another phase to this subject. That 

 strong sense of justice among bee-keepers, men- 

 tioned in your editorial, will very likely make it un- 

 necessary for us to spend large sunis of money in 

 U. S. courts, provided the people are properly in- 

 formed regarding the rights and wrongs of invent- 

 ors, and it rests largely with our literature as to 

 whether or not honey-producers shall receive such 

 information. Ja.mes Heddon. 



Dowagiac, Mich., Mar. 20. 



In the meantime Mr. Danzenbaker was ad- 

 vised that Mr. Heddon would reply to his arti- 

 cle then in type. In anticipation of this he 

 directed his attorney at Washington to send in 

 his opinion on the legal aspect of the question, 

 to us. It was received before Mr. Heddon's 

 article, and is reproduced herewith: 



The A. I. Boot Co. .'—Mr. F. Danzenbaker requests 

 me to give you an opinion upon the question of in- 

 fringement of the patent to James Heddon, for 

 bee-hive. No. 32V,~'68, issued Sept. 29. 1885, by such a 

 hive as that shown in Mr, D.'s patent. No. 6~1,873, 

 issued June ~6, 1894. 



A careful comparison of the hives shown in the 

 respective patents discloses a similarity of struc- 

 ture only in the following respects; viz.: Each hive 

 is composed of several (three) removable cases, 

 containing respectively brood-frames and honey- 

 sections, and each has a similarly made top or cover 

 for the hive. Such similarity being found to exist, 

 the question is presented. Has the Heddon patent 

 any claim which, by a fair construction, can be held 

 to cover the same, and hence be infringed by the 

 Danzenbaker hive ? In my opinion, this question 

 must be answered in the negative. 



The only claim of the Heddon patent, that even 

 remotely touches upon the features of construction 

 common to the two hives, is the 5th; but under no 

 principle of construction, recognized by the courts, 

 can his claim be held to be infringed by the Dan- 

 zenbaker hive, because the latter does not contain 

 the cleats and thumbscrews that are specified as 

 essential elements of the combination in said claim. 

 To infringe this claim, a hive must not only eon- 

 tain the thumbscrews and cleats, as the means for 

 holding the brood-frames in position, but such screws 

 and cleats must have substantially the location and 

 relative position specifically defined in the claim. 



The scope of this claim of Heddon, furthermore, 

 is not only restricted l)y reason of its express limi- 

 tations, but by the fact that the records of the 

 Patent Oftiee, in connection with his patent, show 

 that he was not the originator of a hive composed 

 of several horizontal sections, to enable the capacity 

 of the hive to be increased or diminished according 

 to the size of the colony. When his application for 

 patent was pending, Mr. Heddon tried to obtain the 

 following claim : 



"In a bee-hive, a brood-chamber constructed of 

 two or more horizontal separable and interchange- 

 able sections." 



This claim the Patent Office refused, as being to a 

 construction that was old at the time of Heddon's 

 Invention, as shown by patents 33,668; 196,060; and 

 203,890, and the claim was accordingly dropped. 

 You will see that tliis claim contains no such limi- 

 tations as the 5th of his patent; and had he secured 



