MILKING MACHINE DISPUTE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 21, 12 June 1914, Page 3

MILKING MACHINE DISPUTE.

RIVAL PATENTS.

At the Supreme Court, Wanganui, the Ridd Milking Machine Coy., applied for an injunc'ion against the Simplex Milking Machine Coy., on the grounds of ■infringement of patent rights. Messrs M. Myers (Wellington) and R. I Quilliam (New Plymouth) appeared for i the plaint ills, and C. C. Hutton (Wangai nui) represented the defendants. In opening, Mr Myers traced the various great improvements that had been made in milking machines. Prior to K)OS there was tro way to deliver the milk. The tests involved attention. Extra labor and difficulty in operation were entailed. Then in 1908 the Ganc releaser was invented. It was the first automatic releaser. The next improvement in this connection was the Armstrong, patented in 1911, This was claimed to produce'a better continuity of the flow of milk, the vacuum being broken down to a far less extent than in any previous releasers. Armstrong claimed to be the first patentee of the , automatic releaser, in which the dig- , charge from one chamber to another and from one receptacle to another was i caused by equalisation of air pressure I 'in the two compartments and receptacles. Mr Myers said that he would I call evidence to show that the Davis re- | leaser was a clear infringement of the ] Armstrong.

The statement of claim sot out that on or about 25tli April, 1011, one David Henry Armstrong, of Meremerc, Hawera, being the first and true inventor of "means for automatically receiving and delivering milk from 'the vacuum pipes of milking maoliines, made applications for letters patent in respect of bis invention, and bis application was granted, being for a term of fourteen years as from April 2.5111, 1011. Also that the plaintiff's acquired all Armstrong's interests in the said patent. They claim that since the execution of the said assignment between Armstrong and themselves the defendants liave infiinged the bitter's patent and threaten to continue such infringements. They asked the court for air injunction. The statement of defendant company set out as a denial of alleged infringement as made out by the plaintiffs, that the apparatus used by i\t defendant company is dissimilar in construction and function of parts to 'that registered by Armstrong, and that Armstrong's invention was rot useful.

-Tames Thomas Hunter, patent agent and engineer, and managing director of Henry Hughes, Ltd.. gave evidence that he had had a great deal of experience in connection with 'milking nmclnnos. fie had had occasion to look into Armstrong's patent when it was investigated before the Ridd Coy. bought it. ' He knew the Oane patent and criticised and compared this patent with tho Armstrong, ("lane's invention was quite a new departure, it having an .automatic releasor. To witness' knowledge there was no releaser on the records prior to this date, September, 1908. The Ridd Company bought the Armstrong patent .ou the slrcim'th of witness' report. Counsel: Aw iWvr any diifeven-es between Armstrong's patent and ("Jane's? Witnef.s: YCs. material dili'ercnecs. Counsel: Ts there anything in Armstrong's patent which eoir.es forward for the first time?

Witness: Yes, I ho now principle. There are two chambers, one at n greater elevation than (bo otlier. The hig'lier one receives the mi'.k constantly. IL has an automatic discharge at the bottom that opens with the weight of the liquid alone. The valve opens into tlip lower chamber. The. .higher chamber is always connected with the source of vacuum, ami it l*ss means within it whereby the rise of the level of the liquid in the higher elinmbor sanses the lower ehamher to 1)0 also connected with the vacuum. The air conditions in the two chambers are thus equalised. The weight of the milk in the higher chamber is therefore free to net on the va've and forces it open, so that it runs into the lower eliamber. The special mechanism in the lower chamber that T have already spoken of then acts in such a manner that it causes the lower chamber to be disconnected with the vacuum and it is then emptied. This causes the valve between the two chambers to close by reason of the airprossure and the discharge valve. This id in the bottom of the lower eliamber, which opens by the weight of (lie milk that is in this cha.mbor. so that, the milk will run out. The principle that operates the Armstrong is alternating connecting the lower chamber with nir and vacuum, so that the condition of the air I pressure, as compared with that in the other chamber is such as to exceed or equalise the pressure in the. other chamber. That is entirely a now principle, so far as the patent records go, Tt is quite different from the Gane. A Simplex pamphlet was put in. Witness, foul inning, s'nd: I have closely exainiiir ' this pamphlet, and lisive compared it w' ' ; the method whi"h the Armstrong re'.. ..sor is worked. T find that it works exactly on the same principles as the Armstrong that 1 have described. This is shown by the diagram and the desjcription in the pamphlet.

>fr ITutton cross-examined at, considerable length. Win. Williams, dairy farmer, residing at near Hawera. stated that he. had been dairviug for about thirl v years, lie had ISO cows, about 11)1) of which were nuehino-niilkod. lie knew Armstrong, who was share-milking for witness when he ( Armstrong) patented the I'oloaser but ho did not know where Armstrong was now. Witness v.-a.s not pecuniarily interested in the patent. He had the flnne releasor (costin." about t:!."!) mi his farm, where Armstrong used it. Armstrong then invoked one and u-cd it. unknown to the witness. Mislead of Ihe (lane. Since Armstrong left three seasons ago. witness used the

Armstrong releasor, and he jtnve 11io Untie iiwii-,-. Witness said tli.il. the Arm'.t worked better tluin the (lane, which lived to slop sometimes and Hood the vacuum tank. The Armstroa" conhl lie taken (o pieces for cleaninfj as easy :!- a- Imckol. The Onne was a !.i fv -er machine, ami was ehmsv to handle, lie .had not -ecu (lie Simplex machine. IVrcv William fcnxtoit. farmer of Uawcra. said thai lip n<«l ti\e. Amift.nm« machine to milk 75 to R!l cows, and lia-d Personal exneriei',vo of the iko of the machines, which worked very well, bavin;;; no slonpae.es or breakdowns. Witness then illustrated the muUtod of takin;; ti'ie machine, to pieces. Chiirlos Edward Ifcfi.uinncKs, daii-v farmer at Mangatoki, near Kltlimn, said that lie had been farming' for a consider-

able period. He used about 60 cows, using an Armstrong milker, which he found to be very -useful. N Bis sons, the oldest of whom was 14% years of age, assisted hini in tbe milking, and did it as well as men. Without the Armstrong releaser the boys could not get through the work "In the same amount of time. He could take the machine to pieces "while you were winking." Donald Cameron, agent of Stratford, said that he liad had six years' experience of milking machines, and he had been instrumental in installing five or six of these Armstrong's recently. On the whole, these were working very satisfactory. Ambrose Ridd, living at New Plymouth, and managing director of the plaintiff 1 company, deposed that his company obtained an assignment of Annstrong's patent in November, 1912. He had seen four milking machines upon which the Simplex releaser formed part; I three of the machines in the Waikato, I and the other in Taranaki. These formed part of Uie installation by the Simplex Company. He luid not seen any other Simplex releaser, excepting at shows, where they wero shown by the Simplex company, and in a tinsmith's shop at Auckland. One Cuff, a milking machine expert, had told the witness that the Simplex had sold about 100 of their machines. The machines and releasers were generally sold as a whole, when they could be supplied. He remembered receiving a letter on August 27, 1911, from Davis. At that time witness did not know that the Armstrong releaser had been patented, until he got a verbal report from their patent agent. After they had sold all that were made, they mode only one sample machine, as they wanted to get the Commonwealth rights to the machine. Their company the* acquired the Commonwealth rights about twelve months ago. The two machines, the Simplex and the Armstrong, were very similar. He would say that one was an exact replica of the otter. The releaser was well known, and was very popular amongst farmers. A company without a releaser had a poor chance of doing business. The evidence for the plaintiffs then closed—Abridged from the Chronicle.