274 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



[June, 



[For the American Bee Journal.] 



A Suggestion, to avoid Controversy. 



Mr. Editor : — Witli your permission, I will 

 place before the readers of your valuable Journal, 

 what I regard as being the duty of all persons 

 engaged in the sale of patented bee-hives, and 

 also the diity of those who purchase them. Let 

 every patentee specify in his circular, as well as 

 in his deed, precisely what his claims are ; then 

 let every person desiring to purchase the right, 

 examine them in connection with the hive they 

 are intended to protect. This will enable all 

 parties to ascertain to what extent, if any, the 

 hive itself infringes upon the claims of some one 

 else. 



It is claimed that many -hives in use are in- 

 fringements upon Langstroth's patent ; or in 

 other words, that they contain features not 

 granted by the Patent Office, outside the real 

 claims which have been granted ; and which out- 

 side features are direct infringements of the 

 Langstroth claims. Now, if any inventor or 

 patentee wishes the law to ])rotect what the 

 Patent Office has granted him, he certainly 

 ought to be sufficiently liberal to let the same 

 law protect the claims of others. And in my 

 opinion he will do so, if ho is just ; but he falls 

 far short of this duty when he adds to his claims 

 those of Mr. Langstroth or any one else, without 

 stating pointedly what the hive he sells contains, 

 outside of his _own patented inventions, and 

 v/hich are infringements upon the patented 

 claims of other parties. For when hives are sold 

 containing the rights of different inventors, with- 

 out advising the buyer of the fact, the latter is 

 at once subject to the penalty of the law, if he 

 puts what he purchases in use ; — and this, too, in 

 many instances without a knowledge of the fact 

 tliat he has put in use in his hive features which 

 are the property of others. Such a course on the 

 part of hive dealers, when closely looked at, is 

 certainly a gross violation of the true principles 

 of justice, and cannot be treated with contempt 

 sufficiently severe. Indeed, it occurs to me that 

 tire man who will ask the law to protect his 

 claims, and then knowingly infringes upon his 

 neighbor's, would sjjit tobacco in his best friend's 

 eyes, and then complain if asked to submit to 

 similar usage himself. I therefore hope that all 

 persons wishing to use movable combs, will as- 

 certain just what Mr. Langstroth's claims are, 

 so that when any other hive is otfered to them, 

 tiiey may be able to judge as to what extent, if 

 any, it infringes on those claims. Then, if will- 

 ing to purchase a hive containing such infringe- 

 ments, they will have no just grounds on which 

 to base complaint of having been swindled or 

 imi^osed upon. 



I own some Langstroth territory, and find 

 parties engaged in selling hives therein, contain- 

 ing infringements. In some instances, in order to 

 effect a sale, agents have been base enough to 

 assert to purchasers that the Langstroth patent 

 has expired ; in other instances they state that 

 it docs not cover any part of the movable comb. 

 My own course is to state, in my deeds, what 

 features I have for sale. I have a general agency 



for the sale of a hive containing patented features, 

 and I have those features clearly set forth in each 

 deed. As to what extent, if any, it may contain 

 features of some other patent hive, I am unable 

 to say ; yet it does contain some that are in dis- 

 pute. These, it is to be hoped, will soon be 

 decided by a proper tribunal, when all can judge 

 correctly as to what part of the movable comb 

 is a valid patent, and what part, if any, is not. 

 If it is decided that any considerable portion of 

 the movable frame is protected by letters patent, 

 then parties who have it in use in different forms, 

 may know just what to look for, and to what 

 extent they are infringing upon the Langstroth 

 patent, and I do hope that Mr. Langstroth will 

 get justice done him, be that whatever it may. 



G. BOHRER. 



Alexandria, Madison Co., Ind. 



[For the American Bee Journal.] 



What More is Wanted ? 



Inhere is an apparent effort on the i^art of some 

 to make Mr. Langstroth, and perhaps others, 

 think that I do not give him the credit of tirst 

 introducing the movable combs to the public. 

 What else can " Novice" mean on page 206 of the 

 Bee Journal, where he says, "Had Mr. Quinby 

 been at the Cincinnati Convention he would, 

 have found thei-e is a very strong tendency to 

 give Mr. Langstroth the whole credit of intro- 

 ducing the movable comb hive, now at least." 

 Editorial notes on page 184 are of similar im- 

 port.* Now I have no cause of quarrel with 

 Mr. Langstroth, and I don't think he has any 

 with me, and as I am a little weary of the sub- 

 ject, I propose to say definitely what I do concede 

 to him, and will quote his own words from a 

 circular published by him in 1807. He says — 

 "Movable frames were used by Huber more 

 than eighty years ago, and the lirst edition of 

 Langstroth's work on bees, published in the 

 spring of 18r)o, while desei'ibing them, gives 

 ample credit to their celebrated inventor." He 

 claims to have taken the crude arrangements of 

 Huber and others, and made a convenient j^rac- 

 tical, movable comb hive of it, and introduced it 

 to the public. Of this I have not a doubt, and 

 I challenge "Novice" or any one else to specify 

 where, or when, I have ever said or intimated 

 anything to the contrary.f ' He applied for and 

 obtained a patent, which he was of course en- 

 titled to, and I do not know the man that would 

 withhold gratitude for the success he has 

 achieved. 



When Watts had given the hint of the power 

 of steam, J and Fitch had completed an engine,:}: 

 and Fulton combining other principles pi-oduced 

 the steamboat,:); could he — Fulton — claim alias 

 the result of his invention ? Neither can be 



* The editorial notes were not exactly " of similar import." 

 They were intended to expro.ss suriiri.se that Mr. Quinby 

 insists on and persists in denying iVIr. Langstrotli'sclaims as 

 inventor of the movable comb hive. If he is not the inven- 

 tor, pray who is? — Ed. 



■f- There is such a thing as "damning with faint praise." 

 —Ed. 



J Is this stating the case of these parties fairly, and doing 

 them j ustice respectively ? — Ed. 



