Edward Davy

Edward Davy (June 16, 1806 - January 26, 1885), was an English physician, scientist and inventor.

Conclusion

Davy was victim of both circumstance as well as that of "common conspiracy"; and despite what efforts were made to give him credit, since the court system itself seems to have been divided against him, this was a goal that could never be attained.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

To lastly quote from the same above-said O'Reilly v. Morse, et al (1853) 56 U.S. 62, 108, Judge Taney makes the following baby blunder ...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:"The remaining European patent is that of Edward Davy. His patent, it appears, was sealed on the 4th of July, 1838, but his specification was not filed until January 4, 1839; and when these two English patents are brought into competition with that of Morse, they must take date from the time of filing their respective specifications. For it must be borne in mind that, as the law then stood in England, the inventor was allowed six months to file the description of his invention after his patent was sealed; while, in this country, the filing of the specification is simultaneous with the application for patents."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

How is it, Judge Taney, that you can just say date must be taken from the time of filing?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Were you not just attemping to make Morse's August 1838 French patent appear to have been the earlier patent, when all the while it was simply obvious that Morse took out his August 1838 patent in reaction to Davy's July 4, 1838 patent?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

But on that note, even if you were correct about the filing of the separate descriptions, American Law is also quite clear about a situtation known as ex post facto law, or things done after the fact.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

You cannot, as American Law says, come along afterwards and make or enforce a law just to suit an individual purpose; but that is what you are doing here!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Davy already had a description prepared WELL in advance as is witnessed in his many publications going all the way back to 1836 in his Outline of a New Plan of Telegraphic Communication, its just that SINCE the English Law didn't require a simultaneous filing, he just didn't do so ? not that he couldn't have.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It is ex post facto, sir, for the United States or any other country to expect an individual to anticipate all happenings as they are going on prior to their occurrence.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

That, according to American Law, does not give any sort of a "fair warning" to what is expected and is in direct violation of America's hard fought for Constitution.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

But further, Taney makes another blunder on page 109 when he trys to make an argument defending the "firstness" and earlier filing of Morse's April 7th, 1838 Specification ...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:" we are satisfied, from the testimony, that the plan , as it now appears in his specification, had then been invented, and was actually intended to be described." (Emphasis added)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

If Davy would have known this, certainly he would have worked the invention first and then gave his description years and years later; but unfortunately for Morse et al, that would have meant that Davy's invention actually occurred sometime in 1836.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The judge seemed to feel that Morse's contemplations, and the third-party hearsay evidence that he presented, were presumed to contain no errors and based upon complete and utter fact; whereas Davy's contemplations prior to his 1836 publication weren't even brought up, despite the fact that Morse was educated as an Artist and was paid and practising as a professor in his chosen field at the time Davy had devoted himself completely to his experiments surrounding the "New Plan of Telegraphic Communication."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

But the reader must keep in mind that America at this time was really "feeling its oats," and it wouldn't have mattered if Davy or anyone else was in the right ? Morse was first, and we'll "beat your ass" if you don't like it.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

But just to set the record straight ...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~