him from taking out three patents: the first
in 1865 for a sewing-machine hemmer, and the last in 1882 for an
improvement in incandescent lamps. If he made Lamp No. 4 previous to
1872, why was it not also patented?

"There are other circumstances which throw doubt on this alleged Goebel
anticipation. The suit against the United States Electric Lighting
Company was brought in the Southern District of New York in 1885. Large
interests were at stake, and the main defence to the Edison patent was
based on prior inventions. This Goebel claim was then investigated by
the leading counsel for the defence, Mr. Curtis. It was further inquired
into in 1892, in the case against the Sawyer-Man Company. It was brought
to the attention and considered by the Edison Company in 1882. It was
at that time known to the American Company, who hoped by this means to
defeat the monopoly under the Edison patent. Dreyer tried to organize
a company for its purchase. Young Goebel tried to sell it. It must have
been known to hundreds of people. And now when the Edison Company after
years of litigation, leaving but a short time for the patent to run,
have obtained a final adjudication establishing its validity, this
claim is again resurrected to defeat the operation of the judgment
so obtained. A court in equity should not look with favor on such
a defence. Upon the evidence here presented, I agree with the first
impression of Mr. Curtis and with the opinion of Mr. Dickerson that
whatever Goebel did must be considered as an abandoned experiment.

"It has often been laid down that a meritorious invention is not to be
defeated by something which rests in speculation or experiment, or which
is rudimentary or incomplete.

"The law requires not conjecture, but certainty. It is easy after an
important invention has gone into public use for persons to come forward
with claims that they invented the same thing years before, and to
endeavor to establish this by the recollection of witnesses as to events
long past. Such evidence is to be received with great caution, and the
presumption of novelty arising from the grant of the patent is not to be
overcome except upon clear and convincing proof.

"When the defendant company entered upon the manufacture of incandescent
lamps in May, 1891, it well knew the consequences which must follow a
favorable decision for the Edison Company in the New York case."

The injunction was granted.

Other courts took pract