THE AMERICAJSr BEE JOURNAL. 



213 



Explanatory.— The figures before the 



names indicate the number of years that the 

 person has kept bees. Those after, show 

 the number of colonies the writer had in the 

 previous spring and fall, or fall and spring-, 

 as the time of the year may require. 



This mark O indicates that the apiarist is 

 located near the centre of the State named : 

 6 north of the centre ; 9 south ; 0+ east ; 

 *Owest; and this 6 northeast; *o northwest; 

 o^ southeast; and P southwest of the centre 

 of the State mentioned. 



For the Amennan Bee Joumat 



Replies to Inpiries atiout my Hive. 



JAMES HEDDON. 



I deplore the necessity of writing 

 80 long an article upon this subject. 

 I will endeavor to answer the ques- 

 tions of Messrs. Alves, Kretchmer, 

 and Pond, most of which relate to our 

 United States patent laws and rul- 

 ings. For the past 20 years some of 

 my study outside of apiculture has 

 been that of patent law ; being led in 

 this direction by association with a 

 near friend, who is one of the leading 

 solicitors and counselors in this coun- 

 try. Before penning my replies, 

 allow me to quote the following from 

 the Supreme Court decisions, and 

 other high authority, numbering the 

 quotations in sections, references to 

 which will save time and space ; for I 

 am sorry to say that brevity and 

 justice to the subject are not possible 

 partners when discussing this ques- 

 tion, and answering many inquirers 

 in one article. 



In view of the fact that bee-keepers 

 have received some false impressions 

 regarding the object and worth of 

 our patent system, and that almost all 

 believe the erroaeous doctrine that 

 the breadth and validity of a patent 

 may be determined by subjecting its 

 •claims to a few sharply-detined, dog- 

 matic statutes. I offer the following 

 quotations : 



Shx'TIOn I.— The right of property which 

 iin inventor has in his invention is excelled 

 111 [loint o( dignity by no other property- 

 right whatever. The benetits which he con- 

 fers are greatei than tlaose which he 

 receives. He receives from the Government 

 nothing which costs the Government or the 

 people a dollar or a sacrifice. He receives 

 nothing but a contract which provides that 

 for a limited time he may e.vclusivelv enioy 

 his own. Letters-patent arc not hurtful 

 monopolies. 



II.— Old desires newly attained are evi- 

 dence of invention. 



III.— Combining old devices into a new 

 article constitutes invention, when such 

 combination produces a new mode of 

 operation. 



IV.— According to a principle in patent 

 law— one prominent in determining patents 

 ability— the public adoption or desire to 

 adopt a new device affords evidence of 

 novelty and patentability. 



v.— Patent law declares that the fact of 

 abandonment and subsequent adoption of 

 things claimed to be alike, is evidence suf- 

 flolont to negative that claim. 



VI.— Novelty of a thing is not negatived 

 by any other thing fundamentally incapable 

 of the functions of the first. 



VII.— Novelty and patentability are not 

 negatived by the fact that every part of the 

 thing is old. 



(By virtue of a new combination of 

 the old 26 letters, this issue of the 

 Amekican Bee Journal is new.) 



VIII.— Novelty of any thing is not nega- 

 tived by another thing which was not 

 designed or used to perform the functions 

 of the first. Everything favors the patentee 

 on account of perjury. 



IX. —Infringement or desire to infringe, 

 are either or both, pi'ima facie eviden'O 

 of utility. 



X.— Addition to a patented machine or 

 manufacture does not enable him who 

 makes, uses or sells the patented thing with 

 the addition, to avoid a charge of infringe- 

 ment. The above is true, even when the 

 addition is agreat improvement, and patent- 

 able or patented. 



XI.— Changing the relative position of the 

 parts of a machine or manufacture does not 

 avert infringement where the parts trans- 

 posed perform substantially the same 

 respective functions after the change as 

 before. 



XII.— Any claim will hold its equivalent, 

 for few combinations now exist, or can 

 hereafter be made, which do not contain at 

 least one element, an efficient substitute for 

 which could readily be suggested by any 

 person skilled in the particular art. 



Xm.— The state of the art to which an 

 invention belongs at the time that invention 

 was made, must be considered in construing 

 any claim for that invention. 



XIX.— The original inventor of a machine 

 will have a right to treat as infringers all 

 who make, use or sell a machine operating 

 on the same principles or performing the 

 same functions by analogous means or 

 equivalent combinations. 



XX.— A patent should be construed In a 

 liberal spirit to sustain the just claims of 

 the inventor. Noveltyand utility constitute 

 patentability. Whether mentioned therein 

 or not, all claims hold all equivalents and 

 all constructions, the arrangements and 

 functions of which are substantially like the 

 thing claimed. 



By the foregoing it will readily be 

 seen that our patent statutes and 

 rulings are very elastic ; made so for 

 the purpose of doing justice in all the 

 varied cases ; and further, that a 

 patent covers much more ground than 

 usual where it relates to a manufac- 

 ture which is adapted to and invented 

 for carrying out a new mode of opera- 

 tion or system of management. 



Space forbids the mention of the 

 many decisions in actions in equity, 

 which go so far toward doing justice 

 to those who give the public some- 

 thing of value. 



In reply to Mr. Alves' questions on 

 page 72, I will say that the only 

 trouble I have had in any of the ways 

 he mentions, has been to get all the 

 parts of tlie hive of accurate measure- 

 ment, and thoroughly-seasoned ma- 

 terial. After that, everything stays 

 in place, and I have less trouble with 

 bee-glue than when using the sus- 

 pended frame. So say all who have 

 used the new hive. I desire to thank 

 Mr. Alves for his candid and intelli- 

 gent article on paee 167. 



Regarding Mr. Kretchmer's patent : 

 By adopting the following method in 

 replying to him, I do so to save space, 

 and because the case at point is so 

 clear. I have a copy of his patent. 

 No. 67,123, cited by him on page 211 

 of Oleanings. and page 18.5 of the Bee 

 Journal. I have studied his speci- 

 fications, of which the drawings form 



a part, and carefully real the four 

 declarations which he says coiisti- 

 tute the nature of the invention. 

 None of them anticipate or conceive 

 of one single principle connected with 

 the construction, manipulation, or 

 new functions of my hive. The brood- 

 chamber is not in two parts, it has a 

 fast bottom, is utterly incapable of 

 being inverted, "alternated" or in- 

 terchanged, and not a word pointing 

 to the conception of such a thought is 

 anywhere found in the specification. 

 The upper surplus apartment has 

 tight-fitting top-bars. The wedge of 

 which Mr. Kretchmer speaks, is not 

 the equivalent of a screw, is not used 

 substantially in the manner nor for 

 any of the purposes for which I em- 

 ploy the use of the screw, except as it 

 presses the frames together, tending 

 to lessen the deposit of bee-glue be- 

 tween them, which has been used for 

 years in wide-frame supers, and for 

 which no one has ever claimed a 

 patent. 



The break-joint principle of my 

 honey-board is shown very differently 

 arranged, not substantially as I use 

 it, nor for any of the purposes except 

 that he mentions its having a ten- 

 dency to prevent the queen from 

 going above, while I use it mainly 

 for the purpose of preventing the 

 attaching of brace-combs to the bot- 

 tom of the surplus receptacles ; for 

 which a patent was granted to me 

 when used in combination with the 

 new hive. 



Now, Mr. Editor, in order to save 

 time and space I mail you a copy of 

 Mr. K's patent as cited, also of my 

 own, and request you to hand them 

 both to the foreman of your manufac- 

 tory, or any patent lawyer, or any one 

 else competent (if for any reason you 

 would rather do so, than examine it 

 yourself), and in a foot-note to this 

 article, give the results of that ex- 

 amination in fewer words and less 

 space than would be required to copy 

 our several specifications and claims, 

 and state whether or not my declara- 

 tions as above are correct, and if you 

 can find one single feature or princi- 

 ple anticipating the construction or 

 purposes of my late invention.* 



In point of connection let me refer 

 the reader to many of the sections 

 above quoted. 



Referring to Mr. Pond's article on 

 page 199, the sections I quote above, 

 as well as Dr. Tinker's candid article, 

 seem to me to fully answer Mr. 

 Pond's questions. Mr. P. sees little 

 difference between my arrangement 

 and Mr. Root's Simplicity hive, except 

 in depth, which the latter constitutes 

 no invention. I certainly can and 

 should have no objection to the con- 

 tinuance of a public use of Mr. Root's 

 Simplicity hive in any depth, or the 

 use of anything else that has been in 

 use, or anything that may come into 

 use that does not use substantially any 

 of my combinations as and for the pur- 

 poses specified. I should not, could 

 not, and do not claim anything based 

 upon depth, size, number, or thick- 

 ness of parts. 



Although the idea of inverting 

 combs by series rather than singly, 

 originated with me (whether prior to 



