4 6 D O C U M E N T 2 8 R E S P O N S E T O W O L F F
have the gift of ennobling and activating the minds of your auditors. So do send me
the scribble from the Figaro sometime at your convenience, not so much for its own
sake as for ours.
Best regards to you, your wife, and the
Anschütz[8]
family, yours,
A. Einstein.
28. “Response to the Expert Opinion of Hans Wolff in
the Legal Dispute between Anschütz & Co and
Kreiselbau”[1]
18 January
[1922][2]
Response to Wolff’s Expert Opinion[3] in the Matter of Anschütz versus
Kreiselbau[4]
It cannot be my task here to go into all points connected with the ones I would
have to comment on about Wolff’s expert opinion; instead I confine myself to indi-
cating the most important points of
principle.[5]
1. According to my earlier expert
opinion,[6]
any apparatus that makes use of a
horizontal gyrocompass to detect curved flight falls under the protection of the
plaintiff’s
patent.[7]
This point of view is not shared by Wolff’s expert opinion, in
that it makes reference to Rosenbaum’s
treatise[8]
and represents the view that the
transfer of the ideas expressed there to airship travel would have been obvious
although it does not deny that the application to aircraft offers characteristic tech-
nical advantages. This involves an issue that cannot be solved exactly but only intu-
itively; I am, however, as before, of the conviction that despite Rosenbaum’s article
the invention of the gyroscopic kymograph for airplanes could very well not have
been made or would have required some years’ wait to emerge. This issue is per-
haps immaterial according to British patent specification 125096 from the year
1916 describing a gyroscopic kymograph for
airplanes,[9]
which patent specifica-
tion was not available to me as I was writing my earlier
opinion.[10]
If this British
patent specification should also be recognized in the interpretation of the protective
scope of the plaintiff’s patent, even though its content was naturally not accessible
over here in this country at filing of its patent, the plaintiff’s patent’s protective
scope would have to be narrowed down further than indicated above.
Previous Page Next Page