[D8959AAB], Letter from George Edward Gouraud to Thomas Alva Edison, January 5th, 1889


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


[D8959AAB], Letter from George Edward Gouraud to Thomas Alva Edison, January 5th, 1889

Editor's Notes

"I am much obliged for your letter of December 15th. I sincerely wish that I had had this letter long ago as it would have saved us both much trouble. I quite agree with you as to your feeling that it was disheartening &c. ### I can now see that the advice under which I have been acting here, has been given with insufficient consideration for the effect of the foreign patents upon the relative American patents. The mistake seems to have arisen from the fact that it was supposed the American patents were already secured before the foreign Specifications were sent to me. This was my impression also, but it appears not to have been correct. So far as I am at present able to learn, no patent has been issued which will have the effect of prejudicing the American patents, and although I know your fear to the contrary, I sincerely trust it will prove to be groundless. The provision made in your letter for the future, is clear and specific, and will remove all debt.### With regard to Mexico: the Specifications were sent to my Agent there, but with the knowledge that the patents could not be issued until certified copies of the American relative patents were filed with the Government. I wrote to the Messrs Dyer & Seely with reference to these certifications and in their letter of 20th August they informed me that Case 84 contained the subject of 2 U.S. patents+, that the Case 85 was the subject of 6 American ([...........]), only 2 of of which had, at that time, been patented. I have never sent certificates to Mexico concerning Case 84 or 85 and was therefore as much surprised as you on hearing of the decree to which you refer. A letter since received from the Patent Agent in Mexico states that he obtained this decree as a special act of benevolence, but this he did without in any way communicating with me, I, in the meantime, having been aware from Messrs Dyer & Seelys’ letter above referred to, of the undesirability of proceeding further until I should be advised. I should think that the same influence which could ensure the benevolence of an irregular issue, would ensure the equal benevolence of cancelling it ,or at any rate, that we should not be made the sufferers for circumstances entirely beyond our control. I should think that your suggestion that refusing payment of the fees would meet the case. I note that you will deal with the future applications as regards Mexico. Kindly ask Messrs Dyer & Seely to advise me from time to time, their action in the matter. ### PERU & ARGENTINE.### I find that applications had been made for Peru and the Argentine and I immediately cabled to delay issue until further advised. I have heard from Peru that the patent has been delayed accordingly, but I have not yet heard from the Argentine. ### AUSTRIA. ### I presume you recognise the recent decisions of the Austrian Government with regard to filing of applications there and delaying issue until relative patents are issued in America, which seems to me to be the point in your mind. I shall be glad to have your early advice on this matter as I presume you have no wish to impose upon me any expenditures in advance of the necessities of the case. ### ITALY. ### I enclose copy of a letter received from our agent with reference to applications in Italy for Messrs Dyer & Seely’s consideration and advice. ### In your paragraph 2 which I have already disposed of, you mention Denmark, Peru, Russia, $ Hawaii. In regard to Denmark and Russia, Case 84 & 85 only were were filled under express assurance that they would not be issued until specific application was made for Cases 84 & 85 only, but, their issue has been delayed. The application was made for Hawaii and the Specification forwarded but were not completed in consequence of the absurd charges and comparatively small value of the country as previously advised.### In regard to Austria and Italy; I presume you will not have any objection to giving me your reasons for requiring what you do in your paragraph 3; namely, With reference to countries which grant patents for various terms up to 15 years. First as regards Austria. I presume that the recent decision of the Government which I understand was made in direct consequence of the litigation which has occurred in connection with some of your patents; namely, That patents could be filed but the issue delayed until the issue of the relative American patents. This information I recently communicated to Messra Dyer & Seely and am waiting their instructions. I am since informed that the 15 years fees, which I paid in Cases 86 & 87, will be refunded for 14 years in consequence of that decision, and without any prejudice to the patents whatever, I therefore hope to receive your approval to accepting this refundment. Put that country therefore, out of consideration with reference to my next observation. I shall be obliged if you will inform me yur reasons for requiring me to pay the whole 15 years on Portugal, Italy, Turkey & the Argentine Republic? In other words, why you think it necessary to require me to pay the fees on 15 years patents at any other dates than those fixed by the laws of the different countries. It is, of course, entirely in my option whether I take out the patents at any or all of these countries, and you will not think it unnatural that I should like to know your reasons - which must be good ones, no doubt - for imposing upon me conditions that are more onerous than than those imposed by the laws themselves. You will appreciate that my outlay on account of these patents and I am sure you will not wish to make it more onerous than is necessary."





Folder/Volume ID


Microfilm ID


Document ID



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