Bell Dethroned as Telephone Inventor

On Hold writes "The US Congress has decided that A. G. Bell was not the real inventor of the telephone. According to this article, it was invented by a Florentine immigrant called Meucci. Meucci later worked with Bell in a lab, but couldn't afford the patent fees. It seems like Bell could." Wait until you read the stories giving Shawn Fanning credit for inventing P2P...

Comments

credit where credit is due

[tps12]

However, Bell is still recognized for creating a popular character who sold telephones in radio and telegraph ads with the hip catchphrase, "dude, you're gettin' a Bell."

what about elisha gray?

[larry bagina]

On Feb. 14, 1876, Gray filed with the U.S. Patent Office a caveat (an announcement of an invention he expected soon to patent) describing apparatus 'for transmitting vocal sounds telegraphically.' Unknown to Gray, Bell had only two hours earlier applied for an actual patent on an apparatus to accomplish the same end. It was later discovered, however, that the apparatus described in Gray's caveat would have worked, while that in Bell's patent would not have. After years of litigation, Bell was legally named the inventor of the telephone, although to many the question of who should be credited with the invention remained debatable.

Re: what about elisha gray?

[Black Parrot]

This is one of the main reasons I think patents are, by and large, bogus. There is a marked tendency for multiple people to "invent" something at essentially the same time.

And that's hardly a surprise, since inventions depend critically on the mass of technology current in society. I conjecture that "little guys" do most of the work, and "inventors" merely skim the cream off the top.

screams of hoax to me....

[jeffy124]

This sounds like a possible hoax to me. Too many odd questions surround this story -- Since when does Congress make rulings on who properly holds a patent/invention? Isn't that something for the court system? Why is it I cannot find this story at other sites? And why is the one with the story an Australian site, why hasnt the US press picked this up? Hence, I think it's a hoax.

Must be true.

[booch]

Well, if Congress says it's true, it *must* be true, eh?

In my city, a developer signed a contract to renovate a building. After spending a couple million dollars, they gave up. Conveniently, the city passed a resolution determining that the renovation project was "complete". Of course, the building is still sitting there unused.

I hate it when the government makes things "true" by legislative fiat.

This is standard for almost all inventions

[kroymen]

The actual innovator of a concept or technology is almost never credited for it. Rather, it's the second-tier opportunist that takes the work and creativity of the innovator and reinvigorates it by repositioning it within the market or refining it in some way.

Sometimes it's because of the lack of savvy or capital posessed by the true innovator; other times it's that the innovator was operating just outside the realm of either technical practicality or social acceptability.

The true genius of Microsoft was building a business model around that oft-missed truth.

Elisha Gray

[Dimwit]

This is (sort of) completely off-topic, but I have to toss this in - Elisha Gray is my great, great, great grandfather.

The supposed story is that Bell was in collusion with the patent clerk (who was, I believe, his brother-in-law or son-in-law). Elisha Gray began the patent filing process earlier than Bell, but was told that without a working model, no patent would be granted.

While I have no problem with his having to produce a working model, after Elisha Gray turned in his plans for a telephone, the patent clerk (knowing Bell was working on a similar project) gave Bell the plans, and then allowed Bell to apply and receive a patent even without a working model.

So, dammit, I could've been a billionaire. Stupid patents.