Mr. Imitator:Your letters to the trade and your public advertisements regarding the United States Court decision, have been misleading or positively false. Your public quotation from United States Court's decision: "It is not surprising that the trade prefers the Almond chuck," gives a positively false impression, as the United States Court's full statement on the subject reads as follows: "It is not surprising that the trade prefers to get an Almond chuck operated with a toothed key rather than the same chuck operated with a spanner." The truth, therefore, according to the Court's statement is, that the Jacobs Improved Drill Chuck with toothed key is the trade's preference,and not the Almond chuck.
You seem to have forgotten many things. Therefore, to refresh your memory, and that the trade may know the actual circumstances that led up to our bringing suit against you for infringement upon our patent, we publicly address you. A portion of our communication will be quotations from letters now in our possession, written by "our IMITATOR," and Arthur I. Jacobs.
It Is A Fact Well Known To Mature Mechanics that there was not a convenient, efficient, accurate and durable drill chuck until Arthur I. Jacobs, in 1902, invented the toothed sleeve and key chuck, which has since become extensively and favorably known all over the world as the Jacobs Improved Drill Chuck.
It Is A Fact Well Known To Mature Mechanics that the Jacobs Improved Drill Chuck was the first chuck offered to the trade in which a large range of adjustment could be easily and quickly made, and in which the initial and final adjustment could be forcibly performed with the use of a key.
It Is A Fact Well Known To Mature Mechanics that the Jacobs Improved Drill Chuck was the first chuck having a sleeve (which any mechanic would call a sleeve) that could be adjusted with a toothed key.
It Is A Fact Well Known To Mature Mechanics that when the Jacobs Improved Drill Chuck was offered to the trade, it was immediately recognized as a New, Improved Drill Chuck.
It Is A Fact Well Known To The World that the United States patent office recognized the Jacobs Improved Drill Chuck as a new, useful and patentable device, and that, on September 16, 1902, a patent on this invention was granted to Arthur I. Jacobs.
It is our opinion (and in stating same we believe we voice the opinion of every right minded, intelligent mechanic and inventor) that the spirit and purpose of a United States patent is to protect just such inventions as this, and when a United States patent fails to protect a patented article that is new, superior and useful, the like of which was never before known, then our patent system becomes a farce, and the person or persons who bring about such a condition, commits an outrage upon the public.
In June, 1902, soon after Mr. Jacobs applied for a patent on his invention, he went to Brooklyn, N. Y., and showed his chuck to our Imitator with the view of interesting him in its manufacture. Mr. Jacobs did this because he believed his invention more valuable to our Imitator than to anybody else, as he thought there were enough chuck manufacturers, and because such an arrangement would avoid competition.
We will not rehearse what was said at that interview, except that our Imitator, after looking at Mr. Jacobs' chuck, slammed it down on the desk and said, "That don't amount to anything." (Case number one of your failure to recognize or Admit "hidden merit.") Correspondence followed this visit, from which we quote. On June 28, 1902, Mr. Jacobs wrote our Imitator as follows:
"I think that should you put this chuck on the market, your chuck business would almost have a new lease of life. I am satisfied that there are chuck makers enough now, and I also believe that should you make arrangements with me to make my chuck, and would allow me to help you about it, that you could make more money out of the chuck business than you now do. After having read the above, should you feel that you would like to make an arrangement with me, to make my chuck on some equitable basis, I would be glad to come and see you, and try with you to perfect such an arrangement."
On July 5, 1902, our Imitator replied as follows: "Your favor of June 2&th at hand. I enclose cut of chuck which shows Your Idea as applied to my chuck." A photo-lithograph of this cut is here shown. We invite you to study this cut, and then explain to us, wherein this cut in any way shows the Jacobs idea, as applied to an Almond chuck. If you can do this, you can see "hidden merit" where we cannot.
On July 14, 1902, Mr. Jacobs replied to our Imitator's letter of July 5th as follows:
"Neither the cut of chuck, or the copy of letter show anything that I did not know before. I had never seen a rack and pinion applied to the Almond chuck until I did it. I think it is a new combination. I believe it to be useful, and I expect to get a patent on it. And when I get a patent on that combination, if you are going to do a chuck business, I should be very glad to make some arrangement with you, for you to use my invention."
On August 12, 1902, Mr. Jacobs wrote our Imitator advising him that a patent had been allowed on the Jacobs invention, and on August 13th our Imitator replied stating: "Allow me to congratulate you."
On May 7, 1903, Mr. Jacobs wrote our Imitator as follows:
"I still feel as I have from the first, that it would be the very best thing for Jacobs and Almond to be interested together in the chuck business." Then in substance Mr. Jacobs added, Now on the basis of my being able to prove to you that I can make my Chuck in one-third the time you claim it takes to make yours, would you like to have me interested with you in the chuck business?
On May 11, 1903, our Imitator replied as follows:
"In reply to your favor of the 8th inst. I must state that I do not wish to enter into any such arrangement as that which you mention. IT IS NOT A MATTER OF INTEREST TO ME WHETHER YOU CAN MAKE CHUCKS CHEAPER THAN I." (Another case of ignoring, if not ridiculing, "hidden merit.")
Therefore, it being impossible to make an equitable arrangement with you whereby we could work together, and mutually share the profits from the Jacobs invention (because as later events indicated, you Intended To Appropriate The Whole Of It) we, to get a just return for the value of our invention, were obliged to go into the Drill Chuck business, and being obliged to do so, we went into the Drill Chuck business to make a success of it. We purchased machinery and tools best adapted to our work. We invented, designed and perfected special machines, fixtures and tools to accurately, correctly and economically manufacture our Chuck. We were most successful, and our realization far exceeded our expectation, as to quality and quantity of output.
The trade welcomed with much enthusiasm the Jacobs Improved Drill Chuck. As evidence of same, we quote from a New York dealer's order of September 1, 1903: "Please send us more Chucks, fifty or one hundred. They are going, like 'hot cakes' and we must have some right away." The fact that we sold in our second year in the Drill Chuck business about double the number of chucks that you claimed to sell per year, after twenty years of effort, is also convincing proof of the comparative favor with which the Jacobs Improved Drill Chuck was received.
Because of the convenience, efficiency, accuracy and durability of the Jacobs Improved Drill Chuck and our free expenditure of time, energy and money, a great demand was created for the Jacobs Improved Drill Chuck. In 1905 we were unmolestedly enjoying the just reward of our genius and effort when you, who had repeatedly been given an opportunity to make our Chuck upon any equitable basis and share our success, you, who had enjoyed the protection of a United States patent for seventeen years, Ignored The Claims Of Our United States Patent, and placed upon the market a Drill Chuck that not only infringed upon our patent, but you infringed upon every Law Of Fair, Legitimate Competition as your chuck was so nearly like the Jacobs Improved Drill Chuck In Outside Appearance that it deceived the drill chuck buyer, who thought he was purchasing a Jacobs Chuck, and only learned that it was an inferior imitation when it went wrong and he sent it to us for repairs.
In substantiation of the above statement we quote from a letter of ours dated February 23, 1909, advising our customer that the chuck he had sent us for repairs was not a Jacobs Chuck. We wrote him, "We find that it is not a Jacobs Chuck." It was "our Imitator's." Our customer replied to our letter as follows:
"We are pleased to say that we are well satisfied with the Jacobs Chuck and specify that particular make when in the market for an article of that nature. WILL EXERCISE MORE PARTICULAR PAINS IX THE FUTURE TO SEE THAT WE GET WHAT WE CALL FOR."
It was this condition that confronted us, this crisis that compelled us to bring suit against you for infringing upon our patent. On October 8, 1905, our counsel wrote you notifying you that you were infringing upon our patent. On October 15, 1905, you replied to this communication as follows:
"Replying to your favor of the 8th, we would say that the patents issued to Mr. J. R. Washburn, September 29, 1868, No. 82,571, and Mr. D. E. Whiton, October 20, 1868, No. 83,349, are our authority for doing as we are doing. Yours very truly, T. R. Almond Manufacturing Company, C. A. Hubbell, Treasurer."
If the statement in your letter was true, it would seem to be a pertinent question to ask, why did you not immediately upon the expiration of these patents, which expired seventeen years before, place upon the market a drill chuck which you claim is shown in the Washburn and Whiton patents, and not have waited twenty years until Jacobs invented, patented, placed upon the market, and created the demand for a toothed sleeve and key Drill Chuck? It seems to us that any Unprejudiced, Right Minded, Honest Person could not help but conclude that the Washburn and Whiton patents were simply excuses, and that as you imitated everything in sight on the Jacobs Chuck, the same size and number of teeth in both sleeve and key, the same size and number of key holes (in fact, your keys would fit our Chuck, and your broken keys were sent to us for replacement), that the truth of the matter is that you Appropriated To Your Own Use, Everything In Sight, of the property of The Jacobs Manufacturing Company.
Now, for a few words regarding the United States Court's decision: It is true that the United States Court decreed that the T. R. Almond Manufacturing Company, of Brooklyn, N. Y., may continue to manufacture and sell in the Eastern District of New York, an imitation of the Jacobs Improved Drill Chuck, but we are of the opinion that it was a case of "might, not right," and that had your lawyers been working for us, the Court's decision would have been reversed. We only wish there was a higher court to which we could appeal this case, not that it would make any pecuniary difference to us, because we now have the Drill Chuck business, but we would gladly expend a few thousand dollars to show that a United States patent cannot be ignored and "trodden under foot."
The United States patent examiner, an expert on patents, possibly a mechanic and inventor, with copies of the world's patents for reference, after carefully examining the case, decided that the Jacobs Improved Drill Chuck was the only Chuck in which a large range of adjustment could be easily and quickly made by hand, and in which the initial and final adjustment could be easily and forcibly performed with a key, that it was the only Chuck having a sleeve provided with means so that it could be forcibly adjusted with a key; that it was new and useful, therefore, patentable. He accordingly granted a patent on the invention, dated September 16, 1902.
The Judge of the United States Court, not necessarily a patent expert, an inventor, of even a mechanic, apparently did not appreciate the difference between the internal rack of the Washburn and Whiton Lathe Chucks, that could only be adjusted by the use of the key, from the outside sleeve of the Jacobs Improved Drill Chuck that could be adjusted by hand, also by the key, therefore he decided that because the Washburn and Whiton patents showed an internal geared rack that could be operated only with a toothed key, that there was no invention in the Jacobs combination, although he admitted that it was an improvement and new. To quote Judge Chatfield's own words, "Experts, as has been said, for both parties to the suit, agree in pointing out these matters of improvement and advantage in the method set forth in the Jacobs patent. It is merely a different application without novelty except that the elements combined Have Not Been United In One Structure Before." In the name of reason, what constitutes a patentable invention if it is not found in improvement, advantage, and a new combination of elements in one structure as Judge Chatfield states are found in the Jacobs Improved Drill Chuck?
But the United States Court decreed that the T.R. Almond Manufacturing Company, of Brooklyn, N. Y., may make and sell in the Eastern District Of New York, an exact copy of the Jacobs Improved Drill CHUCK, and we humbly bow to the Court's Decree. Therefore, you may, without fear of being molested by us, imitate all the features of our Chuck that your limited conception of mechanics is able to grasp. You may publish all the facts you please about us and our product, the more the better, but if you continue to make misleading and false statements about ourselves and our product, and yourselves and your product, you may rest assured we shall place before the public a statement of Actual Provable Facts.
The Jacobs Mfg. Co.