Early American Automobiles Selden Patent

Early American Automobiles

Ford's Response to notification that he was being ued for infringement on Selden Patent Rights

Home Amesbury Body Makers MA Automobiles Merrimac Auto Bodies Pioneers Links Auto Ads Pre 1900 1900- 1903 1904-1907 1908-1910 1911-1914 1914-1920 1921-1928 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Recent Additions E. Rickenbacker Packard Cars Auto Styles 1902 Thomas Automobile Special Automobiles Wells Automobile Museum

Copied verbatem, including typographic errors, from the 1904 Edition of Automobile Review Magazine

The Ford Motor Co, and the Selden Patent,

A recent inquiry sent to the Ford Motor Co. as to what stand they proposed to take in regard to the Selden Patent brought forth the following reply:

"So far as our plan of action is concerned for the future it is extremely simple. We intend to manufacture and sell all of the gasolene automobiles of the type we are constructing that we can. We regard the claims made under the Selden patent as covering the monopoly of such machines as entirely unwarranted, and without foundation in fact. We do rot, therefore, propose to respect any such claims, and, if the. issue is forced upon us, shall defend not only ourselves but ' our agents and customers to the fullest extent, and this, too, without regard as to whether or not we join any combination for the purpose of defending against said patent.

In taking tais stand we cannot conscientiously feel that Mr. Selden ever added anything to the art in which we are engaged. We believe that the art would have been just as lar advanced to-day if Mr. Selden had never been born: That he made no discovery and gave none to the world; if he did it was a narrow and impracticable one, having no value, and that he and his assignees cannot monopolize the entire trade by forcing upon it an unwarrantable construction of his claims hy those Interested in sustaining them.

With regard to the assertions made by the so-called Licensed Association,—they come to us in a multiplicity of forms. A certain trade journal published a supplement which purported to set forth fully the object and basis of the association. After reciting that five decrees had been entered by consent, it further stated:

' "It will also be noticed that in every instance the Co art decided in favor of the patent."

A purported interview with a representative of a certain eastern paper, published at Hartford, Conn., with the patentee, George B. Sheldon, is published, and copies thereof have b:'en mailed from New York to us, and other parties have received them from the same source with this interview marked. We are warranted in believing that such publication and sending of marked copies to tacse interested was the work of the Licensed Association.

In this interview Mr. Selden is made to say, among other things, that the question of invention has been entirely foreclosed by the decision of the United States Courts that a preliminary injunction would be granted upon merely proving infringement; that the Court would never hear any argument or evidence tending to show that the patent was invalid. This is in direct line with the statement made in the publication heretofore referred to.

We are informed by the highest authority that these statements are absolutely false. That the Courts never regard consent decrees of any value whatever in establishing a patent, and that they would form no basis whatever upon which claims for a preliminary injunction could be made.

The same authority also states that every reputable lawyer in the United States, engaged in the practice of law, knows this principle.

A large number of advertisements have been published in which it is claimed that the Licensed Association members are pioneers in this art. They do not say explicitly that they are the pioneers, but that is the inference. As we know to our certain knowledge, a number of members are not pione'rs in any sense of the word whatever; some of them began (he manufacture of such machines within the last year: Our Mr. Ford is one of the pioneers, as he built the third gasolene automobile machine in the United States, therefore the inference sought to be conveyed that only tie Licensed Manufacturers are pioneers, and especially the statement that each and all of them are pioneers, is not true.

A further assertion is made in the same advertisement, that they own about 400 patents, with the implication fiat these patents are, or most of them, fundamental to the business. We happen to know that some of them are of very little value and that they pertain to tires and incidental things.

Further, we are informed by the highest authority that there are in the neighborhood of 2,000 to 2,500 patents which cover various branches of this industry, and which are in the classes to which the 400 belong. It is perfectly evident from the attitude of the Association that they would have the public believe that their 400 patents must override the other 2,000 which they do not own.

It is further claimed that they are making 90 per cent of the gasolene automobiles. We are not now in a position to state whether this is true or not, but we are endeavoring to do our level best to reduce the per cent.

In the same article, taken from the supplemental number of said paper, it is alleged that specific defendants after spending a large amount of money in stubbornly contesting cases have joined the Association, with the implication that they had seen the futility of defense. We have it from the best of authority that the Association itself, by Its contract with one of these parties, refunds or pays by remission of dues, all of the expenses incurred by it in defending against the Selden patent.

It is evident from the foregoing that the Association is not a philanthropic institution. It is in the business to make money at the expense of five or six times as many competitors, and that Us members have joined together because of some expected pecuniary benefit in monopolizing tae market under cover of the Selden patent, and not because they believe the patent to be impregnable. This is undoubtedly the truth, as is evident because up to this date, although repeatedly challenged by outsiders and ourselves, they have brought no action since the Association was formed, that we can learn of, against an alleged infringer. They are no nearer establishing the Selden patent as a monopoly than they were last April, when they were challenged to bring such suits. This is not diligence on their part, but conclusively shows that the advertisements which they are putting out are intended to influei ce the public and are a substitute for the proper tribunal, the courts.

In stating our attitude with regard to those mendacious statements and the position of the Selden Association before the automobile public, we are confident that we are voicing the opinion not only of ourselves, but of all the outside concerns, in stating that they do not inspire us, nor the outside concerns, with any degree of confidence in the equity of the Association or In the bona fides of their claims.

If sued as to defenses:

First—All the defenses heretofore set up in any of the cases that have been compromised are just as available in any new suit as they ever were in any of the old ones.

Second—Our attorneys have matter which is very material to a defense which has not been set up or shown in any case, and we do not believe it has been considered by any of the attorneys that have acted in behalf of the Selden patent. Yours truly,

Ford Motor Co.