The Thomas A. Edison Papers Digital Edition

Transcription

Letterhead of Law Offices Howard W. Hayes,
Prudential Building,
765 Broad St.,
Newark, N. J.
February 27th 1903.
Thomas A. Edison Esq.,
Ft. Myers, Florida.
Dear Mr. Edison:-
I have your letter of the 18th inst, but have delayed writing until matters and shaped themselves a little bit and I could give you a full report.
Randolph must have misunderstood my message to him over the telephone, as when he told me about the subpoena I told him to get the papers together with the expectation of examining them before deciding as to whether they should be provided in evidence. The clipping you enclosed is not in point, as that is a case where an effort is made by a stockholder to get at the books of the company for improper purposes. In this case, on the face of it the books and papers are asked to be produced by supoena as evidence in a case. The principles governing the two cases, however, do not vary materially. The rule of law is that where a paper is not relevant to an issue and tends to disclose the private affairs of any person or corporation, the court will not order its production.
In accordance with your instructions I retained John W. Griggs, who was formerly United States Attorney General, to assist me in that branch of the case. He agrees with me entirely in my theory of the case. He agrees with me entirely in my theory of the case, that if they have not as yet produced any evidence whatever to substantiate their claims, and that these papers
<Answered March 9 _ 1903>
<File __>
<Tell Hayes he can include this Recording blank of [illegible] No 676 111>
[TAE Marginalia] are irrelevant and should not be produced as they tend to disclose the private affairs of yourself and the National Phonograph Co. Hardin has been examined as a witness, but they got very little satisfaction out of him beyond the production of a few papers which are on file anyhow in the Chancery Clerk's office in this state. Hardin was very friendly and volunteered no information. He also testified the reason the bid was made in your name for the assets of the North American was because he wanted your personal responsibility on the bid and not that of a corporation about which he knew nothing. Randolph was examined to-day. I had Griggs there with me. Randolph put on the record a statement that he refused to produce any of the books or papers in question because they were not relevant to the issue and tended to expose the private affairs of yourself and the National Phonograph Company for the benefit of business rivals. He made a good witness. He remembered that the cheque of $7500 was produced by you and which had been given to Hardin at the time of the sale was a loan from you to the National Phonograph Company which that company repaid. He also remembered that when I handed the cheque to Hardin that I stated it was for and on behalf of the National Phonograph Company. Hicks will try to get and order from the court compelling Randolph to produce the papers in his possession which we will fight tooth and nail, and if necessary take to the Court of Appeals. I don't think that we have any reason to expect that any books or papers disclosing private business affairs will be ordered to be produced.
Mr. Gilmore met Attorney General Griggs at that my office this afternoon and was very much pleased with him and glad to hear his view of the case. He has gone over the pleadings and testimony so far given and expressed his opinion that so far at the complainants had not put in the evidence a single paper tending in any way to prove their case.
I saw Easton yesterday and told him about the condition of the Graphophone-Grand suit in Germany. He seemed somewhat surprised. He telephoned me to-day that they would be willing to give a license under the Graphophone-Grand patents in all the countries of the world where they were taken out for $5,000 if we would withdraw opposition to them and have them sustained by decrees. I told him that the figure was out of the question and that $3,000 was the limit. He finally said he would accept that and wanted me to make a draft of the papers. I will do so at once, but wanted to let you know immediately the situation. He also wishes to carry out the plan you suggested of each party sustaining such patents as they want to by suits against the other and giving a license after the decree. I told him that was satisfactory so long as the Graphophone-Grand deal went through at the same time. He then asked that in addition to the patents, (the numbers of which you gave Mr. Pelzer) we should give him a license under the built-up reproducer. I told him we would not do that and would expect to push the cases for moulding and for that reproducer and not make them in any way part of the compromise. He demurred for a while at this but finally agreed to the arrangement without them.
In addition to the patents for cutting, the numbers of which you gave Mr. Pelzer, it has occurred to me that possibly the Ayleworth patent for a blank might be worth sustaining. Ayleworth tells me that it was a special blank used for recording but was not very successful and is not used now, but that it or something like it might be used in the future by some record makers. Aylsworth thought it would be a good plan to sustain that although at the expense of giving it a license to the grapophone people under it, so that we could use it against small record makers who might spring up in the future and want to use a blank coming under the claims of that patent. I enclose a copy of the patent so that you can look it over and see whether you want to include that in the patents upon which suits are to be brought.
I hope that you find the fishing good and only wish I could get away for the same purpose, but the trouble is that I have to work a living.
Yours very sincerely,
Howard W. Hayes
Enc. 1.
Dictated
C.