[D8603ZAG], Letter from Waterhouse and Winterbotham to Renshaw and Renshaw, March 1st, 1886


View document with UniversalViewer   → View document on Archive.org  → Re-use this digital object via a IIIF manifest


[D8603ZAG], Letter from Waterhouse and Winterbotham to Renshaw and Renshaw, March 1st, 1886

Editor's Notes

[One of two enclosures referenced in Doc D8603ZAF; difficult to read] We are in receipt of your letter of the 27th ult, enclosing original letter from TAE, and in accordance with TAE's request we beg to enclose [---------] License from TAE to the London Stereoscopic & Photographic Co., with regard to the phonograph, sent to us by TAE when the question of the disclaimer of the phonograph was under consideration. ##The facts are shortly these: this license was granted before the purchase of TAE's Patent of July 30, 1877 No. 2909 by the Edison Telephone Co. of London. As such, the purchase of the Patent was subject to this license. At the end of the license, there is a special proviso enabling TAE or his assigns without any further consent on the part of the licensees to disclaim any part of the invention for the purpose of protecting[?] the validity of the remaining portion and if such disclaimer should extend to the [----] portion of the patent relating to the phonograph, the license thereupon[?] [to terminate?], but without prejudice to the rights of TAE or his assigns to all royalties already accrued. You will probably recollect that in the case of the United Telephone Co. v. Harrison Co. [-----] the Justice [--] declared the patent to be bad on the ground that the phonograph, though sufficiently described in the complete[?] specifications, was not clearly indicated in the Provisional and thereupon[?] the Co. applied to disclaim the phonograph. On the hearing of the disclaimer, Alderman Nottage, who was in fact[?] the London Stereoscopic Co., appeared and offered the quoted clause above and pointed out that it was important[?] to meet the the precise cause that had [----]--that the Patent so far as the United Telephone Co. was interested in it had been held to be good, but that it had been [-----] by the phonograph. [His Hon.?] James (who was then the Attorney General) considered[?] lawyers that they were entitled to some compensation and the matter having been left in his hands, he awarded them 500 pounds, which was paid by the United Telephone Co. ##Under these circumstances, we take it that the license is entirely at an end and the only people who have a right to complain are the United Co. Having no interest whatever in the phonograph, they were put to a great deal of trouble and expense by the patent in that point and finally had to pay 500 pounds to TAE's licensee. ##[He passed?] at the time that the sale of the phonograph had practically[?] ceased long before the disclaimer. The accounts show that very few instruments had been sold after the first novelty of the thing wore off. ##We trust that this information will be sufficient for your purpose, but we shall be pleased to answer any further questions you may have.




Folder/Volume ID


Microfilm ID


Document ID



Thomas A. Edison Papers, School of Arts and Sciences, Rutgers University
Download CSV | JSON