102 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



give no heed to such a bugbear as 

 " Blasted Hopes," but, by persever- 

 ance, phick and energy, hold on; for 

 the average years, for bee-keepers, 

 make as good a showing for " bees 

 and honey," as for any business a man 

 can engage In. 



The Forncrook Patent Section. 



The following, from Mr. Baldridge, 

 is due as a correction, concerning the 

 illustrations given in his previous ar- 

 ticle on this subject : 



I regret exceedingly to find the 

 wrong cut used in the fourth ilhistra- 

 tion, on page 72, in my article on the 

 Porncrook Patent Section. The fol- 

 lowing cut 



2 



ir- 



is the one used, which correctly repre- 

 sents the section covered by the Forn- 

 crook patent ; the one I desired to be 

 used is the following : 



t II II I 



which shows a one-piece section with- 

 out the recesses or passage ways for 

 the bees, and likewise without the 

 " longitudinal groove." This style of 

 one-piece section is public, and not 

 private property ; so are all sections 

 having 2, 3 or 4 pieces. The one-piece 

 section, having a top as wide as the 

 sides, and a bottom so narrow as to 

 give ingress and egress to the bees, is 

 also public, and not private property ; 

 in other words, there is no style of 

 section, whether in one, two, three or 

 four pieces, that is private property 

 {that is, covered by a patent), except 

 the one style made precisely like the 

 section shown in the first cut in this 

 article. Now, I trust the explanations 

 will not be misunderstood. 



In the preparation of my article, as 

 it appears on page 72, 1 did not dream 

 that an enigma would be attached 

 thereto, to wit : That the one-piece 

 section was invented by Mr. lorn- 

 crook, that it has been patented to 

 him, and that it would be dishonest 

 and fraudulent to evade said patent. 

 At this date, I have no proof that Mr. 

 Forncrook was the first and original 

 inventor of the one-piece section " of 

 any description," nor that his patent 

 covers anything of the kind; nor that 

 it is wrong, dishonest or criminal to 

 evade anybody's patent, by making 

 what is or should be public property y 

 What right has Mr. Forncrook or any 

 one else to frighten bee-keepers, by 

 threats or otherwise, from making, 

 using or selling property that already 

 belongs to them? Why should bee- 

 keepers pay a tribute of $1 toS2..50for 

 each 1,000 one-piece sections to Mr. 

 Forncrook, on what is public prop- 

 erty, or on what they have a perfect 

 right to get elsewhere at lower figures? 

 M. M. Baldridge. 



We desire neither to add to nor take 

 from our editorial note, appended to 



Mr. Baldridge's article, on page 73. 

 We believe the position there taken is 

 invulnerable. The patent has been 

 issued to Mr. Forncrook, and that, 

 too, after a prolonged and tedious 

 fight. As to its invalidity, let the 

 courts of law decide, as is suggested 

 in the following from Prof. Cook : 



Dear Mr. Newman :— I send you 

 the following article which I wrote to 

 the N. Y. Tribime, and I hope you 

 will give to our friends in the Ameri- 

 can Bee Journal : 



Perhaps no class has suffered more 

 from imposition in reference to pat- 

 ents than bee-keepers. The whole 

 art, as practised to-day, rests on the 

 use of inventions. Take away our 

 hives, sections, extractors, and foun- 

 dation machines, and apiculture 

 would be bereft of all that gives it 

 prominence. Unscrupulous persons 

 may invent attachments to some of 

 these valuable instruments, which at- 

 tachments may be wholly worthless, 

 and, in combination with other inven- 

 tions which have long been in use, get 

 a patent. Then by threat they induce 

 those who use the article, often with 

 their invention wholly omitted, to 

 pay them money. 



The sale of the Mitchell hive and 

 the collection of money by threats of 

 prosecution, extensively carried on 

 by its inventor, illustrates the point, 

 and it seems to me that we have just 

 now a case exactly in point in refer- 

 ence to the one-piece sections. I 

 know of several dealers who sold from 

 1,000 to 500,000 of these the past year. 

 Now, if bee-keepers are forced to pay 

 ?;6..50 or S7..'50 per 1,000, when, with no 

 patent hanging over us, $4.50 per 1,000 

 would be deemed a good price, we see 

 a serious wrong is committed, unless, 

 forsooth, the patentee has a clear 

 right to liis claim. 



In 1877, I used one-piece sections 

 witli transverse cut to enable me to 

 bend them, with a recess on one side 

 cut by a chisel, made U-shaped. At 

 the same date, many were selling 

 dove-tailed sections with a longitudi- 

 nal groove in which to insert founda- 

 tion. In 1878 Mr. Lewis, Watertown, 

 Wis., made one-piece sections, with 

 oblique transverse cut. the recesses 

 such as I made the previous year, and 

 longitudinal groove. May 19, 1880, 

 James Forncrook, foreman in Mr. 

 Lewis' shop, applied for a patent on 

 just this style of section. The patent 

 was secured. 



In a prosecution of Mr. Lewis for 

 infringement in the summer of 1881, 

 Mr. Forncrook, at first, as I under- 

 stand, failed to make a case, but, upon 

 a rehearing, won on the ground of the 

 recess, on the side ef the section, 

 which permits the bees to pass up into 

 the section. These recesses I cut one 

 year before they made the section at 

 all. Now, as I understand Mr. Forn- 

 crook's patent, it is a combination. 

 Unless a section is in one piece, with 

 oblique transverse cuts, the longitu- 

 dinal recess, and the longitudinal slit 

 for foundation, it does not infringe on 

 his patent. Omit any single feature 

 and we do not trespass. 



Practical suggestions : Believing that 

 Mr. Forncrook has no rights in this 

 matter, I suggest that a friendly suit 

 be brought to test the question. Each 

 bee-keeper who uses sections can af- 

 ford to pay SI to bear the expenses of 

 the suit, and then save much money. 

 Again, if I understand the matter, 

 any one can manufacture a one-piece 

 section, with the recess and trans- 

 verse cuts, if he only omit the longi- 

 tudinal groove, which is really of no 

 importance, and run no risk at all. I 

 can see no equity in our paying $2 or 

 $3 for every 1 ,000 sections that we use 

 to Forncrook, when he really has done 

 nothing to give us this important in- 

 vention. A. J. Cook. 



Lansing, Feb. 6, 1883. 



Prof. Cook's " practical suggestion" 

 is a good one, and is the only Jiorwrable 

 way to test the matter ; that is, by a 

 friendly suit to decide it, in a legal 

 way. Until it is decided, however, by 

 legal means, an evasion of the rights 

 of the patentee is a crime, recognized 

 by law as such. 



We do not propose to occupy many 

 pages of the Bee Journal to discuss 

 a matter which must be decided by 

 law ; we will, however, give the fol- 

 lowing, from Mr. E. J. Scofieldon the 

 subject : 



I have just read the opinion of M. 

 M. Baldridge, on page 72 of the Bee 

 Journal, in which he desires to set 

 aside the patent of James Forncrook, 

 or dodge it in some way. The two- 

 piece section is, I think, a gross in- 

 tringement on the Forncrook patent; 

 it may not be in the eye of the law, 

 but, nevertheless, it is a piece of wood 

 for storing surplus honey, with trans- 

 verse angular grooves, to be bent to- 

 gether in the manner of the Forncrook 

 section, with the fourth piece to be 

 dentated at both ends. He leaves out 

 one of the transverse angular grooves 

 in the patent section ; otherwise it is 

 an exact copy of the patent section. 

 I am no lawyer, but I like to see honor 

 and justice bestowed, where it is due. 

 A section is being manufactured now, 

 exactly like the one illustrated by Mr. 

 Baldridge, at a lower price per thou- 

 sand, but I prefer the one-piece, for 

 two reasons : First, it is a handsomer 

 package than the two-piece one, and 

 it is stronger. Secondly, I would not 

 use the two-piece section and thus 

 encourage its manufacture. I was all 

 through the factory where this sec- 

 tion is made, as well as through the 

 factory where the Forncrook section 

 is made, about two weeks ago, and 

 talked with the proprietors of both 

 establishments. The proprietor of 

 the two-piece box admitted that the 

 two-piece section was intended to 

 evade the Forncrook patent. James 

 Forncrook has spent both time and 

 money to secure what was rightfully 

 his, in the first place, as all bee-keep- 

 ers well know, who have read the Bee 

 Journal for the past five years. I 

 will copy the following from page 10 

 of Forncrook & Co.'s price list for the 

 year 1880 : 



