Alexander Graham Bell, Patent Thief? Telecom patent fights as old as the telephone itself... According to the Associated Press, a new book claims that Alexander Graham Bell, long credited with inventing the telephone, actually stole much of the idea from a rival, Elisha Gray. According to the book Bell, "aided by aggressive lawyers and a corrupt patent examiner," got a look at Gray's patents, stole some successful ideas, and somehow managed to get credited with patenting his solution first: Shulman believes the smoking gun is Bell's lab notebook, which was restricted by Bell's family until 1976, then digitized and made widely available in 1999. The notebook details the false starts Bell encountered as he and assistant Thomas Watson tried transmitting sound electromagnetically over a wire. Then, after a 12-day gap in 1876 —when Bell went to Washington to sort out patent questions about his work — he suddenly began trying another kind of voice transmitter. That method was the one that proved successful. Bell's notebook, in its entirety, can be found here.
|
  UHFAll static, all day, ForeverPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-24 | Prior art If Gray had already filed a patent application, how could Bell have gotten the patent first? Prior art would have already existed in Gray's application for the patent.
Interesting subject. | |
|  |  xyarPremium
join:2001-06-21
Portland, OR | Re: Prior art The article mentioned a corrupt patent examiner - he probably stole the artwork, copied it (by hand, of course) and put it back unnoticed. I bet changing dates around would have been easy.
--
One geek to rule them all! | |
| | | | Three words that were in the recap: Corrupt Patent Examiner.
Not hard to figure out that the guy probably gave Edison the original documents or some sort of copy/access to them and then ditched them and/or pretended he didn't get them.
I can sort of see something like this:
Bell who has a bunch of patents makes a deal with one of the examiners, says if you see anything like this, let me know. Something comes it, the examiner "holds" it, sends a telegram, Bell comes down, pays him off, gets the original documents or copies there of, modifies his to be like the working plans of the other fellow, submits his and the originals are lost or logged in "right after" Bell's.
That kind of thing has been going on forever and still does to some extent today. It's a race to file and not always does the originator get the actual patent. | |
| |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by UHF:If Gray had already filed a patent application, how could Bell have gotten the patent first? Prior art would have already existed in Gray's application for the patent. Interesting subject. That is the main part of the dispute - Who filed first? Bell's detractors claimed he bribed a patent examiner to jump his to the top of the INBOX while leaving Grays in a pile of patent applications on a desk. That was never proved in court. Hence the controversy.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
| | | Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: Prior art said by Romney2012:[That is the main part of the dispute - Who filed first? That's not what I got from reading it. Bell couldn't get his device to work. It wasn't until a hiatus, and trip to the patent office (to ostensibly file some patents) that he suddenly had a working device which was similar to Gray's.
In this case it seems like it wouldn't matter if Edison filed first. Edison's work is alleged to be a derivative of another work prior to either work being patented? Not just that it derived some modest benefit, it appears he couldn't get his to work without incorporating the other person's ideas. In other words, if he didn't have the benefit of Gray's work, and Gray came to market first, and it went to court as a patent infringement against Bell, wouldn't the fact that Bell's patented design didn't work go a long way toward invalidating his patent (assuming he won the patent for being the first filer, and Gray had no patent due to being a later filer)?
Mark
Mark | |
|
xyarPremium
join:2001-06-21
Portland, OR | Well known I thought it was fairly well known that Elisha Gray invented the telephone first? Maybe it just depends on what book you read. Reminds me somewhat of the Philo T. Farnsworth debacle and television (though Philo was the true inventor here, not RCA)
--
One geek to rule them all! | |
| | | | Re: Well known may be the patent committee has to take stringent measures to protect the IPR of patent's so that the future inventors will be assured of the rewards and recognition for their hard work !!!!. | |
| |  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| said by xyar:I thought it was fairly well known that Elisha Gray invented the telephone first? Maybe it just depends on what book you read. Reminds me somewhat of the Philo T. Farnsworth debacle and television (though Philo was the true inventor here, not RCA) Exactly! RCA under the leadership of David Sarnoff went to great length to re-invent history and assigned credit for the invention to Vladimir Zworykin. It was only later on that Farnsworth finally received the credit he was due and RCA's shenanigans became known. But then again Edwin Armstrong suffered at the hands of RCA and Sarnoff to the point he committed suicide. Two years ago during a ceremony commemorating the first FM broadcast by Armstrong it was noted that 200 years from now electronics engineers will still be studying Armstrong's work but Sarnoff will be just a footnote. | |
| | |  KA3SGM- -... ...- -Premium
join:2006-01-17
West Chester, PA | Re: Well known ...and to think about how we missed out on GreyT&T, and the eventual breakup of Ma Grey.
--
"Lithium is no longer available on credit" | |
|
 exocet_cmYou delete it, I'll find itPremium
join:2003-03-23
New Orleans, LA
kudos:2 | 21st Century quote:
"aided by aggressive lawyers and a corrupt patent examiner,"
Sounds like today's times  | |
| |  james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | Re: 21st Century atleast back then people weren't afraid to get some tar and feathers together. These days people will turn the other cheek so fast that they get dizzy. | |
| |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by exocet_cm: quote:
"aided by aggressive lawyers and a corrupt patent examiner,"
Sounds like today's times and todays phone companies. they're just as crooked as bell himself.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
| | | | Re: There is also this article about Meucci Thanks for linking to the Meucci article.
Whenever the "telephone controversy" comes up (again) I can never seem to recall his name.
Poor man. | |
|
 wruckman Ruckman.net
join:2007-10-25
Northwood, OH | Ideas Many people have similar ideas at the same time or work on similar issues and come up with similar solutions. Calling him a thief is a strong word.
--
William Ruckman
»ruckman.net | |
| | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Ideas said by wruckman:Many people have similar ideas at the same time or work on similar issues and come up with similar solutions. Calling him a thief is a strong word. And Bell got the most credit for the telephone because he created a working device 1st and marketed aggressively. Just like Bill Gates did with the operating system for PCs. He bought the OS from someone else, but he was the one who sold it to the masses. Hence he gets the credit(and the profits).
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
| | |  nwrickertsand groperPremium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
kudos:7
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Ideas Just like Bill Gates did with the operating system for PCs. He bought the OS from someone else, but he was the one who sold it to the masses. Hmm, no, that was IBM.
Sure, Microsoft bought the OS. But Digital Research operating systems were doing fine, and Microsoft was just a bit player in the software market, until IBM stepped in and provided support and marketing for the IBM PC and its operating system.
--
AT&T dsl; Westell 2200 modem/router; SuSE 10.1; firefox 2.0.0.8 | |
| | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Ideas said by nwrickert:Just like Bill Gates did with the operating system for PCs. He bought the OS from someone else, but he was the one who sold it to the masses. Hmm, no, that was IBM. Sure, Microsoft bought the OS. But Digital Research operating systems were doing fine, and Microsoft was just a bit player in the software market, until IBM stepped in and provided support and marketing for the IBM PC and its operating system. Who do you think sold IBM on the idea of using MSDOS - Bill Gates.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
| | | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| I thought Gates stole from Dr-DOS, then renamed his MS-DOS and then got IBM to license it!
So again, the greatest "inventors" in our history are really the most clever thieves!
(Hey, how about that Thomas Edison...)
--
Weeeeeeee! | |
| | | | | nwrickertsand groperPremium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
kudos:7 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Ideas I thought Gates stole from Dr-DOS, then renamed his MS-DOS and then got IBM to license it! Hmm, no. DR-DOS was actually a better operating system than MS-DOS.
The MSDOS file system design was the same as that used in HDOS (the Heathkit operating system). However, I'm not sure that Microsoft stole it - they possibly bought it from the same designer as had provided it to Heathkit.
--
AT&T dsl; Westell 2200 modem/router; SuSE 10.1; firefox 2.0.0.8 | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ideas Holy cow did you get that messed up MS-DOS was based on QDOS Quick and Dirty Operating system written by Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products, who based his DOS off of Gary Kildall's CP/M. Gates told IBM to talk to Kildall but Kildall wouldn't go for the NDA, so IBM paid MS to come up with the OS. MS bought QDOS and source for $50K and didn't tell Paterson that they already had a deal with IBM.
So Gates really told IBM who to talk to, that guy didn't have enough business sense to get with IBM. IBM hired MS to get it/write it an OS and MS did. | |
|
| | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by cableties:I thought Gates stole from Dr-DOS, then renamed his MS-DOS and then got IBM to license it! So again, the greatest "inventors" in our history are really the most clever thieves! (Hey, how about that Thomas Edison...) »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft#···Founding
On August 12, 1981, after negotiations with Digital Research failed, IBM awarded a contract to Microsoft to provide a version of the CP/M operating system, which was set to be used in the upcoming IBM Personal Computer (PC). For this deal, Microsoft purchased a CP/M clone called 86-DOS from Seattle Computer Products, which IBM renamed to PC-DOS.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ideas Never Quote from Wikipedia if you want to prove truth.
Wikipedia is one of the most edited highly bias and down right wrong source on the internet. | |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 |  Same Day
This is another attempt to discredit Bell and generate book sales. I wonder how long before the author comes out as a Ron Paul supporter and trumpets his book on the Art Bell show? | |
| | | | Re: Same Day Again that is the standard story, and if there was a corrupt patent agent, who knows what day who filed what.
Again if you have an insider changing the rules, that "same day" BS takes on a whole new light. | |
| | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
1 edit | Re: Same Day said by AnonProxy:Again that is the standard story, and if there was a corrupt patent agent, who knows what day who filed what. Again if you have an insider changing the rules, that "same day" BS takes on a whole new light. It's commonly known that Bell filed his patent AFTER Gray did, but the same day. We're talking within hours. However, there is a BIG difference in filing a Patent and a Patent Caveat ... which is why the Patent Caveat has been discontinued.
Gray didn't file for a formal patent until a year later and the courts struck down his attempt to invalidate Bell's, by then granted, patent.
Patent Caveats basically state, "Here's my idea, picture, drawings, everything ... I'm planning on filing for a patent, but I'm not ready yet."
Gray filed a Caveat and stated he INTENDED to file a formal patent, while Bell filed a FORMAL patent the same day. It's pretty cut and dry.
Too many people believe there is conspiracy where there is usually none. | |
|
| | I thought Al Gore invented the telephone They both stole it from Al Gore | |
| | | | Re: I thought Al Gore invented the telephone said by dneiding:They both stole it from Al Gore Gore invented the Internet so really AOL, et al owes him a lot of royalties. Gore also invented hyperlinks, but that has been disputed. Gore did invent a telephone headset that was noise cancelling that Bill Clinton used when Monica was over doing her thing while Bill talked to members of Congress.
And, Gore also invented Global Warming Theory as outlined in the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." Gore was also credited with inventing the Earth's eventual reverse in rotation caused by Global Warming Theory.
Even though AOL denies it, Gore did also invent Instant Messaging. Gore then invented the webcam interface, but since he was a government employee, he couldn't patent that idea.
Big Rumor was that Gore told Steve Jobs about a music device idea that became the iPod. Gore supposedly told Jobs, "After watching a movie, I thought, 'What if you could put your entire music collection in a 'pod' and take it everywhere."
Bill Clinton only invented the super, triple Big Mac with cheese. McDonalds disputed that claim but Gore said he was there when Bill came up with the idea while they were brainstorming about putting 9.4 gigs on a optical disk that became the HD DVD.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
|
| | Human nature to be pessimist? People deny the Holocaust ever happened, 9-11 was a setup, we never landed on the moon, Bell stole the patent, etc...
Good grief  | |
|  joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5 | Notebook Can anyone read the notebook? Where can I get a higher resolution image?
--
Am Heimcomputer sitz' ich hier, und programmier' die Zukunft mir | |
| Reviews:
 ·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
| Elisa Gray filed a "caveat" In those days, you could file something known as a "caveat" with the patent office. I believe that a caveat was kind of a product in process thing-I have tested this and it works, but I haven't done the formal drawings and made the 100% complete working model yet.
It would seem that Bell probably looked at Gray's caveat and stole Gray's ideas. | |
|  mrchrisOut and aroundPremium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY
2 edits | Leave it It is dead old, just leave it as it is, you modern patent sharks and morons!
Besides, would those losers like to be responsible for rewriting the hundreds of thousands of copies on Science & Electricity? | |
| |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: Leave it think of the bill they could send at&t! vonage would laught their ass off...  | |
| | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
| said by mrchris:It is dead old, just leave it as it is, you modern patent sharks and morons! Besides, would those losers like to be responsible for rewriting the hundreds of thousands of copies on Science & Electricity? I bet you have a lot to loose in life in general if the truth were to be well established better these days. | |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Gray lovers need to get over themselves Ok first of all Bell's invention worked FIRST.
Secondly Gray wasn't even working on a voice phone anyways. His idea was to find a way to send 2 or more messages over the same telegraph wire at the same time. So how could Bell steal his idea?
That's like saying if I came up with the idea to use rubber tires on horse buggys and some guy invents the car and that car uses rubber tires and so somehow that means he stole my idea. | |
| | | Thank god for the Internet As Internet inventor I have created something unique to the point of getting press and my name associated with my work.
Articles noting my company and or I the creator of such.
When it becomes widespread and I am not the one getting rich from it(of course Im working towards that, but u never know), I have the articles and blog posts(over a 100 so far) to note in history the person who created X. | |
| ricep5Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL | Old Argument Ask Stubblefield and Tesla about Marconi and you will get a similar and recognizable beef. (Wireless Telegraph)
Ask Tesla about Edison. (power distribution)
Ask Armstrong about RCA. (FM Radio)
Ask Orville & Wilbur about Glenn Curtiss (wing design)
Something more recent...
Ask Atanasoff about Mauchly (digital computing)
ask Seattle Computing Products about Bill Gates. (DOS)
History is rife of people grabbing others ideas and making them their own. | |
| |  jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·voip.ms
| Re: Old Argument said by ricep5:History is rife of people grabbing others ideas and making them their own. Or at least people making claims of such.  | |
| | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
| said by ricep5:((Lots of good examples omitted; see original post)) History is rife of people grabbing others ideas and making them their own. I detest that, of course, since I believe in right, truth, honesty, fairness, and a bunch of other things baby boomers and libertarians detest, but one of the things I also believe in is that people do build things with and based upon the work of others, and also people do build things with common ideas at similar times. Therefore, the patent system is intrinsicly pitting people against each other that in other ways are very similar, and even would, do, and could benefit from each other in terms of ideas and competition of availability of implementations, despite detrimenting each other in terms of rewards in many patent-related cases (e.g., but not necessarily limited to, today).
This suggests that a well thought and considered improvement to the protecting of the ideas of the intellegent needs to be established, which is rid of the problems of the traditional and/or current patent system. Perhaps those who invent would get proportional royalties according to how much unique effort each one put into their own work, how much unique effort each one put into the finished work of aggregate knowledge, and such things like that. Also, a lessening of the fee to file, perhaps using a more market-driven approach to gauging the efficacy of filings, might help; then, it would not be as expensive to file, and the burden of checking them would not be so government-centric. Gosh, my idea isn't so polished. Where am I going with this? If only lawyers were from a good breed, this would be fixed so long ago ... I don't think these problems are necessarily intractable; they just haven't naturally been fixed. (What is man but someone who can intelligently design?) | |
| | | | | Re: Old Argument said by Ulmo:said by ricep5:((Lots of good examples omitted; see original post)) History is rife of people grabbing others ideas and making them their own. I detest that, of course, since I believe in right, truth, honesty, fairness, and a bunch of other things baby boomers and libertarians detest, Whoa, Nelly.
If you think that Libertarians don't believe in right, truth, honesty, and fairness, then, if you'll pardon my saying so, I'm afraid you don't understand Libertarianism as well as you think you do.
Stealing from Peter to give to Paul (regardless of whether it's "for the troops" or "for the children") is not a "right" or "fair" way of doing things. States cannot create wealth, they can only confiscate it. And having 51% of the people vote away the property of the other 49% does not make it in any way "fair," even if it is entirely "legal" under our current system.
It doesn't bother me if people don't believe in Libertarianism: that's their choice, and the only person they're really hurting in the long run is themselves. What I can't stand is people who claim Libertarianism is "anti-justice" when, in fact, it's about as pro-justice a political system as you could hope to find. | |
|
| | The Bells Have Been Thieves From Day One! Nothing has changed. | |
|
1 edit | +1 for Alexander Well, Alexander Bell is one of my ancestors, so I may have to read this book. I stand by my ancestor, in his rightful claim to inventing the phone. IMHO, his work with aiding the deaf (and his hydrofoil experiments) where more important than the phone anyway. | |
| mc5w
join:2002-06-14
Independence, OH | telephones Ultimately, when Edison and Tesla were still friends when they jointly invented a better telephone - the one that uses a carbon microphone, a small loudspeaker, an audio transformer, and the alternating current ringer. Edison figured out practical ways to build some of the alternating current devices such as the ringer and the audio transformer.
It also turns out that Edison and Tesla did some things "under the table" together such as how Tesla patented the incandescent light bulb concept and Edison's people made it work. Turns out that Edison did indeed understand alternating current. The reasons why Edison chose direct current distribution was that Edison wanted to use the steel conduit and cable sheaths as the neutral and he did not know what to do with system capacitance when most of the light bulbs were off. It was not until cheap hydroelectric power was harnessed that it became practical to have enough motors running all the time to offset the capacitance of underground distribution.
For that matter, Uncle Sam eventually admitted that they had to steal some of Russia's hydrogen bomb secrets in order to build a practical weapon. This was because Andrei Sakharov was the first one to use lithium-6 deuteride as a solid form of heavy hydrogen. Teller and Ulam were still messing around with compression of liquid deuterium and that the smallest hydrogen bomb that we could build when Russia set off theirs was a bomb that was the size of a house. In other words, the only hydrogen bomb secret that the Rosenbergs sold to the Russians was that we were 5 year behind the Russians. | |
|
| |
|
|
