Summary

Mahlon Pitney Brothers v. United States — Opinion of the Court

It did not amount to a mechanical equivalent of the claimant's structure; there is no semblance of an outward inclination of a yielding tower or yielding support, but rather a tendency on the part of rigid towers to break down or collapse inwardly under an undue stress. And, as we have shown, the rigidity of one support is as essential to claimant's structure as is the movability of the other.
Source: Wikisource

Mahlon Pitney Brothers v. United States — Opinion of the Court

The essential feature of the patent is a nonyielding support or anchor at one end of the cable, and a yielding, tilting, or rocking support at the opposite end, consisting of outwardly inclined shears or some equivalent structure held movably at the base, and a counterweight on the outer side. It is to be observed that rigidity of the head tower is a sine qua non, necessary to produce tension of the cable
Source: Wikisource

Mahlon Pitney Brothers v. United States — Opinion of the Court

United States
Argued: and Submitted March 28, 1919. --- Decided: May 19, 1919
Appellant brought this action in the Court of Claims under the Act of June 25, 1910 (chapter 423, 36 Stat. 851 [Comp. St. § 9465] ) , to recover compensation for the unlicensed use by the United States in the Panama Canal work of his patented invention for 'improvements in cable cranes with gravity anchors.' That court made findings of fact upon which it concluded as matter of law that there was no infringement of claimant's patent, and thereupon dismissed his petition. 52 Ct. Cl. 462.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature