D O C . 2 2 6 O P I N I O N N A U T I S C H E V S . A N S C H Ü T Z 1 8 5 II. The expert opinion by Prof. Lorenz, Danzig,[4] based on the alleged main property of the plaintiff’s patent that all gyroscopes are supposedly served to gen- erate the torque at the same time as raising the oscillation time around the N/S axis (Lorenz opinion, page 2, 2nd paragraph to page 3 middle page 3, 5th line from the bottom to page 4, 1st line page 4, last line to page 5, 10th line). To contradict this assumption, I refer to the version of Anschütz patent 241 637,[5] in which the case of the distinction between the directional and stabilizing gyros is clearly and pur- posefully expressed, namely, page 1, lines 47–51 page 2, lines 5–17 claim 1, lines 95–99. The conclusions drawn from the erroneous assumption are no more probative than the general observations about the inventive work by the creator of the later design, as the present case merely revolves around the issue of dependence, not the patentable redundancy. III. The opinion by Prof. Meldau[6] uses an argument that has already been gen- erously acknowledged in the 1st judicial instance and which in my opinion is, among all the newly presented material, the only one that has real connection to the disputed issue. I therefore again summarize my interpretation of this point in the following: a) The realization that the rolling error depends on the oscillation time of the direction-finding system around the gyro axis was first revealed in the plaintiff’s patent and moreover for the first time ways to eliminate or sufficiently reduce the rolling error were indicated. b) The examined apparatus also uses gyro effects to prevent those oscillations. c) The gyroscopes for increasing the oscillation period in the examined appara- tus are not directly borne by the frames carrying the directional gyros, but—what is technically thoroughly equivalent—by a frame that, with reference to the degree of freedom under consideration, is rigidly connected to the other frame. In my opinion, an infringement on the protected scope of Anschütz patent 241 637 would already exist if the relevant design only applied to point (a). The existing coincidence also respecting points (b) and (c) mean, however, that the technical effectiveness of the compasses by the Gesellschaft für Nautische Instru- mente is exactly the same as of the plaintiff’s patent 241 637. A. Einstein. 227. From George Jaffé[1] Leipzig, Ferd. Rhode Street 26III, 10 June 1922. [Not selected for translation.]