| THE SELDON PATENT by Gerald R. Wolfe in 3 parts. |
 This model was submitted to the U.S. Patent Office May, 8 1879 with the patent application. Overall length is 10 inches. The engine simulates a Brayton engine modified by Selden. Photograph is from the Smithsonian Institution were this model is kept. |
| The patent and the automotive industry came together to create a turmoil that left neither car nor patent the same. Virtually every nut and bolt in the automobile was patented and litigation for infringement poured into the courts. But the biggest blow, with the most far reaching effect, was the patenting of the automobile itself. J. Harold Byers, in the Journal of the Patent Office Society (October, 1940, said: “The Selden case was one of those events that give rise to legends. So widespread was the interest in this case and so incomprehensible to the lay mind were some of the facts involved, that garbled accounts were circulated, some having but slight foundation in truth. Moreover. because the history of the Selden patent epitomized practices which came to be regarded as abuses, and because the Selden patent by reason of the prominent position and immense financial resources of the industry to which it related, constituted a magnified cross section of the patent system, the case provided a target for reform. Thus it has come about that the Selden case has been quoted and misquoted, panned and damned, and used to illustrate almost everything that is, was, or could possibly be the matter with the patent system.” The intent of this article is to examine Selden, his patent and the men and events surrounding them in an attempt to present a more clear and comprehensive picture of this confusing and complex issue. George B. Selden (1846-1922), a patent lawyer from Rochester, New York, was the man who patented the automobile. Though a horseman at the time He entered the Civil War as a union cavalryman, a number of unpleasant incidences with his assigned mount, culminating in a near-fatal accident, contributed to turning his thoughts toward horseless locomotion. He has been credited with having “designed and built the first internal combustion engine actually operative for the purpose. This engine was capable of driving a vehicle over the road at 14 miles per hour. In 1879 He filed His application for patent. . . This was nearly five years prior to Benz, Daimler and other well known European automobile pioneers, and substantially twenty years before the beginning of the American gasoline industry.” Selden’s intent, as stated in his patent application, was, “the production of a safe, simple and cheap road-locomotive light in weight, easy to control, and possessed of sufficient power to overcome any ordinary inclination.” Two pertinent objections could be raised against Selden. The first is the lack of production, as alluded to in the previous statement, the second being the sixteen year period that the patent application remained pending in the patent office, ostensibly perpetrated by Selden himself. However, the prevailing attitude that George Selden was a non-mechanically inclined fraud appears to be unsubstantiated by these foregoing observations. Instead, it seems he may have been a shrewd and farsighted, if less than honorable, businessman with enough mechanical know-how to begin experimentation on compression engines, and who was able to anticipate the impact and wealth potential of the automobile, who took advantage of existing laws to exploit his invention. Selden began tinkering with steam as a motive force but found that he could not substantially resolve the deficits He saw in earlier attempts. These deficits named in his patent application, included the weight of the boiler, engine and water supply; the complexity of operation that required the presence of a skilled; and the difficulty in adapting the machine to the rough terrain it had to negotiate. Then, at the Centennial Celebration of 1876 in Philadelphia, he witnessed a display of an internal combustion engine designed and patented by one George Brayton. This led Selden to experiment with such an engine and design His road-locomotive around on exhibiting such modifications as Selden saw necessary. (The differences between the Brayton and Selden engines are discussed in Part; 3 of this article.) Though His experimentation led Him to believe that three cylinders were needed to provide proper balance for the engine, He bored and used only the center cylinder of his three-cylinder casting for the continued study of His design. He was also led to Hiram Everest and M.P. Ewing, founders of the Vacuum Oil Co. of Rochester. His single cylinder was not provided with cooling fins or water jacket and the lard oil used for lubrication proved to be unsatisfactory as it produced too much smoke and carbon deposits. Vacuum Oil formulated a heavy oil that was good for Selden’s use and is still the basis of internal combustion engine lubrication today. Selden’s was also good for Vacuum Oil, giving them an advertising gimmick which, as will be see, perpetuated a still quoted myth about the occasion of Selden building his firs car. This early ad stated: Progress in the Automobile industry: “Get a horse!” they told George Selden when He introduced this strange contraption, the first automobile, on the streets of Rochester, N,Y., in 1877. But Selden actually made his horseless carriage run and it was no coincidence that the first petroleum lubricants used in an internal combustion engine were those used in Selden’s car. Unable to get satisfactory results with the animal fats and tallows then used as lubricants, Selden went to Hiram Everest, a fellow townsman who had just founded Vacuum oil Company, forerunner of the present Socony-Vacuum Oil Company. Everest, a manufacturer of harness oils, developed the petroleum lubricant which insured the success of the first automobile. (Vacuum became Socony-Vacuum when acquired by Standard Oil of New York. They are new part of Mobil Oil Co.) His experimentation completed, completed, Selden submitted his patent application and model to the patent office on May 8, 1879. At this time, there was very little activity in the development, construction or use of the horseless carriage. A series of delays, many of which were minor changes in the drawings, held up final approval of the patent for sixteen and one-half years after the initial filling date. Selden, who prosecuted his own patent, took advantage of the then existing rule that two years were permitted for tan aspiring patentee to respond to required changes. Nine revisions were called for and made in the original document with the patent office spending only a total of seven months in consideration of Selden’s work. The rest of the time was used by Selden himself until circumstances caused him to complete his application, at which time paten number 549,160 was issued to him on November, 1895. It is important to note that a pending patent has priority and is, in a sense, protected as if it were a patent. Two possible explanations of Selden’s conduct exist. First, as already stated, there was little activity in the automotive field prior to the mid-nineties. Knowing that a patent is only valid for a seventeen year period, at which time it becomes public property, so to speak, we can see, as Selden did, that immediate approval would have allowed the patent to expire in 1896. This was prior to the advent of the automobile industry. The delays against final approval moved the expiration date back to November 5, 1912 and made the patent much more valuable. Some feel that the suggestion that Selden foresaw the rise of the automobile is to credit him with being able to divine the future. Others hold that his delays were the result of having no funds or backers to put the patent to use. Perhaps he was simply a man with a product but no market who made an educated guess. Whatever the case, by the mid-nineties Selden could readily see the growth of interest in self-propelled vehicle. Secondly, Selden could have been an infringer of the patents Brayton received (1872 and 1874) on his engine had immediate approval been secured and any attempt made to use it. If Selden countered such a suit with arguments that he had perfected its operation, the prior patent could be upheld by patent protection afforded a broad design within which a perfected piece(s) fits. In this case, before Selden could produce his improved version of Brayton’s engine he would have had to come to terms with Brayton as the holder of the broader patent. Selden might have had a carriage body and drive mechanism as he described them without benefit of an engine, especially since he openly claimed that his was a modified Brayton. However, Brayton’s patents expired before Selden’s was even issued and Selden was left in a position to do unto others what might have been done unto him. One thing is certain, his timing left him in a position to step in and take control of a budding industry. It is this apparent manipulation of patent laws that has led to undying criticism of George Selden. The patent languished in obscurity for four years, probably unknown to most, if not all, of those who were actively developing the gasoline automobile. It was brought to life following a series of events that allied financial tycoon William C. Whitney of the Electric Vehicle Company and Colonel A.A. Pope of the pope manufacturing Co. of Hartford, Conn. This union, named the Columbia and Electric Vehicle Co., was ostensibly formed to produce electric vehicles, yet they purchased the Selden patent which covered gasoline vehicles. This purchase was made on November 4, 1899 for $10,000 plus royalty on every car sold. Pope had a preference for electric vehicles, believing that people would not want to “sit over and explosion” and, though he later acquiesced when events proved him wrong, his part in this ventures seems particularly odd, leading to more speculation. There were those who felt that such a move might have been an attempt to obstruct gasoline motor development, leaving an open market for electrics. This is questionable in light of the fact that they soon issued licenses to gasoline-oriented manufacturers for production of cars under the patent. Licensing required an initial fee plus 5% royalty on each car produced. Little time was lost in waving the patent in the faces of “infringers”. A look at the patent application is appropriate to gain a base of knowledge with which to understand the events that unfolded around patent no. 549,160. The patent application in its entirety will appear after this 3 part article. Close examination reveals 2 points which beg to be made. First, there is relatively little description of the engine, and majority of the balance ascribed to details of the body, carriage and drive mechanism. His assertion that “the general construction and mode of operation of liquid-hydrocarbon engines of this class are now well known, . . . ” is at least questionable for 3 reasons. He failed to name the class he referred to which could have been either two or four cycle in any number of forms. (His drawing was indicative of the two cycle type only.) Also, in 1895, most of those outside the small group who were experimenting with some form of engine had yet to see or hear of the automobile. Finally, if it was such a well known entity, why would it be patentable? Secondly, such a vague description must have been the result of a conscious effort to be as imprecise as possible. This could only lend itself to monopolizing internal combustion engine production and production of the automobile itself. Not only did Selden describe the general characteristics of the automobile as it was in the late 1800’s, he also essentially described the cars we drive today. While the granting of a patent does lend itself to a monopoly of that invention, it is the intent of the patent office that this be for the protection of the patentee, not for the subjugation of the public. Both these points, particularly that pertaining to the engine, would become major issues i8n the years to come. Again, the new owners of patent number 549,160 wasted little time in making their presence known. Dubbed the “lead cab trust” for the lead used in electric vehicle batteries, the Pope/Whitney faction engaged the legal services of Betts, Sheffield and Betts and litigation got under way. The first step was a letter sent to the leading manufacturers of gasoline automobiles from the lawyers stating: “Our clients inform us that you are manufacturing and advertising for sale vehicles which embody the scope of the Selden patent. We notify you of this infringement and request that you desist from the same and make suitable compensation to the owner of the patent therefore.” This was followed by the appearance of the patents claim in the June 27, 1900 Horseless Age precisely as they appear in the patent application. Lest anyone doubt their sincerity, legal action was taken the following month. Defendants named in the suit included the Winton Motor Carriage Co. of Cleveland (then the largest manufacturer of automobiles), the Buffalo Gasolene Motor Carriage Co. of Cleveland (then the largest manufacturer of automobiles), and Messrs. Percy Owen and A.W. Chamberlain of New York City (Winton sales representatives). Other suits were brought simultaneously against groups and persons large and small. Even imports were subject to the trust’s scrutiny and later advertising would claim that “also users of unlicensed machines are liable”. By initiating such bold action at the outset, all phases of the gasoline automobile market were put in a virtual stranglehold. The hue and cry of the trade publication was immediate and acrid. The July 11, 1900 Horseless Age had this to say: “The attack of the lead cab trust on the gasoline vehicle industry concerns every manufacturer of these vehicle, small builders and large ones alike. What the trust lacks in validity of claims it will not be slow to make up in legal talent and financial strength. Even were the Selden patent a mere sieve for ‘holes’ no manufacturer could afford to rely on his own strength in ignoring it, lest a flank attack, in the defeat of his weaker neighbor, should find his own defenses unguarded. in union is strength.” This was typical of the opinions of the time, and the attention given the issue in the motoring press was by no means confined to editorializing. Patent lawyers and “mechanical experts” were called upon to render their knowledge. An article by one John C. Higdon (Horseless Age, 8/8/00), in which he raised the question of the presence of invention in the Selden patent, illustrates: “To illustrate, the aggregation of a washing machine placed upon a motor vehicle will not amount to a patentable invention, even if the washing machine were driven by the motor of the vehicle. The reason for this is that a washing machine, although it be mounted upon a vehicle, produces only its usual result. Duplication of articles is not invention . . . Hence, it is seen that a new combination without any new method of operation is not invention.” Mr. Higdon went on to dissect the patent and concluded: It is clearly evident that the broad claim of the Selden patent should never have been granted by the commissioner of patents, in as much as it clearly appears that said broad claim involves nothing patentable.” Higdon cited four reasons for his conclusion: 1:) The combination of engine, motor vehicle and friction clutch or disconnecting device was not invention; 2:) It would nave occurred to any skilled gas engine mechanic (this would be cause for disclaimer by the patent office); 3:) It merely substituted one engine (gas) for another (steam) and ; 4:) it was considered inoperative due to the lack of a flywheel (an invention must be operable in order to be patentable). The final point could only be surmised via general mechanical knowledge as only the miniature patent model and engine prototype with but on bored cylinder had ever been constructed. the impracticality of the design was a recurring cry of the patent’s opponents. The writings of Messrs. Parker, Burton and Stoddard were equally unfavorable (The Automobile Review, 8/15/03) and show the opposing view: “The object of patent law is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. “On the one hand to such progress a liberal policy., one that shell give full and complete protection to an invention, is necessary: on the other hand the progress of the arts must not be impeded by monopolies created upon ideas which are already public property. It is to encourage invention, not enterprise, that patents are given. Public knowledge is the inventor’s working capital, to sequ3ter any part of it to private use is as odious a monopoly as was that on salt or the other necessaries of life … “But Mr. Selden’s specification says h has produced a lighter and better road locomotive than had been known before. If so, he should be entitled to a claim to such inventions as may contribute to the result, for the mechanical details, such for instance, as he claimed in claims 4 and 6. “The remaining claims are simply attempts to appropriate ideas which have long been public property.” The justification by the patent office for issuance was that, while the pieces of Selden’s road engine were already known, the combination thereof was unique. The government calls this a combination patent, in which several components are assembled for a new result. It was held that bringing together the body, drive mechanism and engine gave Selden the right to such a patent. According to the Commissioner of Patents, 1895, XXVII), Selden’s car “ma be considered the pioneer invention in the application of the compression gas engine to road or horseless carriage, use”. On November 9, 1900, United States Circuit Court Judge Alfred C. Coxe of the Southern District of New York, handed down a decision in favor of the plaintiffs, overruling the defendants writ of demurrer which claimed that the patent was “void for lack of patentability”. In his decision he stated the following (Horseless Age, 11/14/00): “A patent must not be held invalid upon demurrer unless its invalidity so clearly appears that no testimony can change the legal aspect of the case. If doubt exist, the complainant is entitled to its benefit, … It should be remembered that the invention, if there be one, was made very early in the history of ‘horseless carriages’. The court will take judicial notice that prior to May, 1879, the art of propelling vehicles by motors, carried by the vehicle itself, was in its infancy. These carriages were unknown to the streets of New York . . . The fact that Selden’s work was done over twenty-one years ago should not be lost sight of in estimating the value of his achievement . . . It is thought that the complainants are entitle to a more liberal interpretation of the patent that that contended for by the defendants.” The November 21st Horseless Age accused the makers of gasoline automobiles of having been caught napping, thereby giving a real advantage to the plaintiffs. The manufacturers were expecting the patent to be overturned, thinking it was “so palpably invalid for lack of invention that the court could determine this for itself by merely reading the patent, and without the aid of any testimony whatever . . .” (Horseless Age, 11/29/00) Thus far no formal hearing had been held and no testimony given by either side. Only evidence was admissible at this point and the hearing held only to decide on the writ of demurrer. The court does have the authority to overthrow a patent duly issued by the patent office, however, the courts have shown a reluctance to do so on a writ of demurrer, preferring instead to proceed to a full hearing in which there is testimony and a more thorough examination of the case. Horseless Age called for immediate action on the part of the newly formed Hydrocarbon Association to press on to the next level of hearings and claimed that their contacts with the Bar Association said the defense would have a very strong case if it be thoroughly worked up. In a subsequent edition, all interested and concerned parties were urged to unite their strength, evidence and finances with the Hydrocarbon Association to add “solidarity to the defense”. The patent law firm of Kenyon and Kenyon was retained. Nonetheless, it is easy to imagine the alarm that must have spread through the budding industry. the trade journals continued the attack on the trust and it would seem that popular support was with the defendants. The trust smacked of big business and monopoly at a time when America was prepared to rally around a trust-busting president in Theodore Roosevelt. Still, the courts held that the weight of prior evidence fell with the Selden constituents. While the journals were printing articles aimed at disarming the Judge Coxe decision, Judge R. Hazel, United States Circuit Court, Western District of New York, was handing down a second decision in favor of the complainants and in support of the findings of Judge Coxe. This was again a decision against a writ of demurrer. Again writing for Horseless Age (11/28/00), John C. Higdon pointed out that M. Lenoir was granted a patent in 1860 for his engine which was driven by an explosive mixture of air and gas. He went on to trace the development of motive forces antecedent to Selden’s efforts, once again placing the weight of defense upon the engine component. Lenoir’s engine would resurface later as an integral aspect of the defense. In addition to the developing importance of the engine as a measure of the patent’s scope, the editor of Horseless Age (1/16/01) devoted his column to the “disconnecting device of clutch”, claiming that it was the weak point in the patents claim over contemporary cars. He felt that redesigning the means of power transmission could circumvent the patent. The editor of American Machinist (1/23/01) also commented about a speed varying device, designed by a Mr. Dietrich, that would not disconnect the motor and drive wheels but would, through a series of gears, reduce the speed ration to zero, allowing the vehicle to stand with the motor running sans clutch or disconnecting device. He felt that this might bypass the patent but also stated that the court could rule that such a device effected the same end and was infringement owing to the concept of mechanical equivalency. This never became an issue as the clutch mechanism never developed into a major item in the controversy. On February 25, 1901, counsel for the defense filed their answer to the charges, listing thirty-two counts refuting the claims of the complainants. These included their belief that Selden was not the original inventor, that his machine was never used by him, that it would be found to be inoperable if used and that the Electric Vehicle Company had never constructed or sold vehicles of the Selden design. They also submitted a list of prior patents to show that the principles claimed were in use long before 1879. These included forty-six United States patents, (dated from 1844), fifty-three British patents (dated from 1794) and seventeen French patents (dated from 1807). With this, the series of events and the flow of written material slowed nearly to a halt. The rial date was not expected before the Fall o 1902. This of course, did not mean that the opposing factions were idle. Gathering of testimony and evidence kept lawyers busy and the costs ever-increasing. Winton had had been the ball carrier for the defendants and the financial strain was growing. When it was learned late in 1902 that seven manufacturers had applied for license under the Selden patent, the resistance, including Winton, gave way.
|
 |
 |
| PART 2 |
| With the collapse of Winton’s opposition, the patent holders were in a very powerful position. However, recognizing that there is strength in numbers, some automobile manufacturers (reports vary between 10 and 17) began bargaining collectively with Whitney and the Electric Vehicle Co., holders of the patent. Essentially, the manufacturers agreed to purchase licenses from and pay royalties to the Electric Vehicle Co. in exchange for the right to control who was licensed and to get a break in the royalty percentage. Originally 5%, the royalty was reduced to 1 1/4%. With this agreement, the Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers (ALAM) was born on March 5, 1903. These manufacturers, who opposed the patent initially, became a very powerful group by virtue of their change of heart and the endorsement of that same patent, which itself had shown its strength by the very fact that ALAM was formed around and because of its supposed stature in the courts. ALAM sought to increase its base of power while downplaying the amount of control it could exercise in lieu of other aspects of its program. George H. Day, ALAM General Manager, described the organization (Horseless Age, 6/10/03): “The Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers continues to gain strength. In addition to its present membership, including twenty-seven of the most prominent manufacturers in the country, application from as many more concerns are now pending before the executive committee. Several of the patents controlled by the Association, which will soon be made public, promise to influence strongly the lines of future automobile development. “The policy of the Association is to be strictly one of technical development, rather than of profit making. To this end new inventions of merit will be encouraged, and the widest possible application made of such as are now restricted in their use. Financial standing, engineering ability, and business reputation are to be the points most considered in the granting of licenses; and the suppression of wildcat and irresponsible concerns the sole reason for withholding them.” Despite this internal assessment, ALAM was a much maligned organization from the start as trade journals and other publications continued to report most unfavorably on its proceedings. Many daily newspapers called it the $70 million Automobile Trust. In addition, The Automobile reported that it cost $2,500 to enter The Association plus $1,000 in advance royalties. This money was broken down approximately as 20% to Selden, 40% to ALAM . ALAM’s coffers were soon estimated at a worth of $100,000 from dues alone, making one wonder whether the technical was more important than the financial, as claimed by Mr. Day. Almost as soon as it was formed, ALAM gave its adversaries a hero who would prove to be its Nemesis. In early 1903, Henry Ford initiated his third attempt at motor car manufacture, organizing the Ford Motor Co. Aware of the Selden patent, Ford applied for a license through ALAM who made the mistake of turning him down, claiming her was merely an assembler of automobiles, not a manufacturer. Ford sought counsel with the intent of ignoring the infringement issue. Further negotiations, initiated this time by ALAM, were nonproductive as Ford now refused to join. This would blossom into a struggle between titans. ALAM became a many-headed dragon, not all of which heads were bad. They held authority to grant and refuse licensing and were defenders of the Selden patent both in and out of court, but it did not end there. ALAM also initiated an annual handbook which gave valuable data relative to cars manufactured by licensed companies and made this available to the buying public for comparison shopping. Most importantly, they created, within the association, the mechanical branch which was responsible for standardization of components. Other activities, such as shows, were conducted as well. With regard to the right to license, ALAM found itself open to criticism that it restricted trade. The announcement that suit would be brought against anyone entering the industry unlicensed, and the prohibitive cost for licensure, only served to fuel the fire of constraint charges. This, of course, was valid claim only as long as everyone honored the patent. Motor Age tended to agree with the sentiments of G. H. Day, however and said of ALAM licensing rights; “It will prevent the incursion of piratical hordes who desire to take advantage of the good work done by the pioneers to flood the market with trashy machines, made only to sell and not intended to go — at least for any great length of time.” This may have been a valid concern but this editorials was in a distinct minority. Stories such as the following didn’t help his cause. It was reported that a “customer” approached on A. B. Hardy, former executive of Durant-Dort Carriage Co., for a list of customers satisfied with the Hardy gave a list of 52 names, one for each car this small concern had built. In tur, he was given 52 inunctions demanding that he make no more cars until royalties and license fees were paid. Hardy elected to leave the auto industry. The out-of-court defense of the patent involved interviews, such as the one quoted earlier by G. H. Day, and some advertising. Often, full page ads appeared in the journals to enlighten auto purchasers as to who ALAM members were and to warn them against buying unlicensed automobiles. Cited advantages for buying licensed machines included better quality, better service, standardized components, etc. The disadvantage of buying unlicensed machines was the threat of a lawsuit. The Ford constituents were not to be outclassed. Ford often took the full page opposite the ALAM ad to offer the merits of his car as well as bond for any purchaser who was sued. Undoubtedly, ALAM believed its defense in the media was justified by the ongoing assault on the patent as the unceasing cry that Selden’s was neither first nor inventive continued. Still seeking ways to control the sale of unlicensed vehicles. ALAM met September 23-24, 1903 to draw up a contract to be presented to dealers of licensed vehicles. It read, in part; “Now therefore, the party of the second par, in consideration of being supplied with licensed vehicles by the party of the first part under this contract, covenants and agrees with the party of the first part, (1) that it (the party of the second part) will not, during the continuance of this contract, infringe said patent, nor make, sell, or keep on hand, or in any manner dispose of or deal in, directly or indirectly, any unlicensed vehicles, that is to say, any gasoline automobiles not manufactured under license of said Selden patent; and (2) that it will not sell, consign, or deliver any licensed vehicles purchased from the party of the first part under this contract to any party making, selling, having on hand or dealing in unlicensed vehicle.” This, of course, did not affect anyone who chose to deal in only unlicensed vehicles but ALAM planned to take care of that by litigation, actual or threatened. One additional nuance of the ALAM advertising campaign involved the use of the word “PIONEER”. Perhaps the Ford people were nit picking, but J Couzens, secretary of Ford Motor Co. had this to say in a substantially longer letter to The Automotive Review (10/15/1903: “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 pioneers in any sense of the word whatever; some of them began the manufacture of such machines within the last year: Our Mr. Ford is one of the pioneers, as he built the third gasoline automobile in the United Sates, therefore the inference sought to be conveyed that only the licensed manufacturers are pioneers, and especially the statement that each and all of them are pioneers, is not true.” Whether or not such an interpretation is valid is up to the individual reader of the ad. Future advertising would lend more credence to illustrate that this controversy led both sides to pursue any angle that might further their cause in the eyes of the motoring public, sometimes without reason or justification. The ultimate confrontation was initiated on October 21, 1903 (October 22 in some accounts) with the filing of an infringement suit. The plaintiffs were the Electric Vehicle Co. of Hartford, as owners of the patent, and George B. Selden, but ALAM would fund the action with monies held in reserve from the dues and royalties specifically for patent defense. The defendants named were C. A. Duerr and Co., a New York Ford agency, and the Ford Motor Co. Later others would be named as co-defendants, including john Wanamaker, a seller of Ford cars. Panhard et Levassor, interestingly enough, was not only sued for infringing the Selden patent but for infringing two others which ALAM had acquired, dealing with a sleeting mechanism, as well Originally the Panhard and Ford suits were filed separately but were later combined by the court as the charges and testimony were nearly identical in both cases. Ford’s was the sixth suit filed by the Selden forces, all five preceding it having been settled out of court with defendants joining ALAM. This was not to be the case with the stubborn Henry Ford. counsel for the Ford Motor Co, was Parker and Burton of Detroit, while ALAM continued to retain Betts, Betts, Sheffield and Betts. The case would be tied in the U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York. Most trade journals expressed hope that the matter would be settled quickly and conclusively now that the court was finally going to pass judgment. They hoped in vain. The defendant’s answer was voluminous and reiterated many points made earlier regarding inventiveness, originality and practicality as well as alleged illegality in the conduct leading to the patents issuance. (Selden’s delays were noted in Part I of this article.) They further alleged that the defendants in the first suit (Winton, et. al. vs. Electric Vehicle Co. and Selden) were paid off to drop their defense, that their court costs and damages were waived, that their evidence was taken over by the plaintiff’s attorneys and that all this was purposely withheld from the public knowledge. Still further, that the previous evidence, which, as known by the plaintiffs, incontrovertibly proved against Selden’s claims, was being withheld from the current defense attorneys, as it had been withheld and /or destroyed to prevent examination by other prior defense attorneys. They demanded that the plaintiff’s attorneys, being the same ones who retrieved and withheld that prior evidence, refile it for the benefit of the public and the defense then being formed. The formation of ALAM was seen as a deliberate attempt to monopolize and their advertising as knowingly false and fraudulent in starting that the patent broadly controlled all gasoline automobiles. Moreover, they claimed that the implication that the acquiescence of prior defendants was proof of the validity of the patent was contemptuous of the court because of the allegation that the court had so ruled and that such allegation was intended to cause the buying public to acquiesce as well. They concluded with a long list of prior United States and foreign patents. With this, the trial of Ford vs Selden, both pioneers in their own way, began. As mentioned earlier, ALAM was a many-faceted organization. The remainder of this article will detail some of it’s activities away from the controversy with Ford, which will be picked up in the next issue. At its height, ALAM controlled 87% of the automobile manufacturers in the United States which produced 90% of the gasoline automobiles built in this country. It also controlled some four hundred patents related to the automobile. This last fact is not as formidable as it might sound as there were approximately 2,500 automotive patents at the time. Still, so many under the influence of a single group would have to have had a significant bearing on the industry. This is impressive but not all inclusive. Several unlicensed companies banded together as early as August of 1900 to form an association to oppose the Selden claims. This group evolved into the American Motor Car Manufacturers Association (AMCMA). Several prominent men and companies were represented in this group, not the least of which was Thomas B. Jeffery, but most conspicuous by his absence was Henry Ford. He refused to join any organization, preferring to stand alone, though he certainly agreed with AMCMA’s position that Selden’s patent was not applicable to contemporary cars and could not be used to construct a practicable car. |
