144
DOC.
12
EXPERT OPINION
1908,
dealt with the
problem
of the
damping
of unwanted oscillations
(no.
236200).
After
a
preliminary
court
hearing
before the
Landgericht I
in
Berlin
on
5 January 1915,
Einstein
was
asked
to
draw
up an expert opinion,
for which
he
was
to
receive
1000
marks. The
court
formu-
lated
a
number of
questions
that Einstein had
to
address. For the
source
of annotation
of
this
document and
more
background
to
Einstein's
involvement in the
dispute
between
Sperry
and
Anschütz and his relations with the
latter,
see
Lohmeier and
Schell
1992.
See
also
the Intro-
duction
to
this volume and Doc.
19,
the
supplementary expert opinion
that Einstein
wrote
in
August 1915
at
the
request
of
the
court.
[3]The
numbers
of
the various sections in the
text correspond
to
the
questions
formulated
by
the
court (see
the
previous
note). In its first
question
the
court
asked what
physical
laws
governed
the
functioning
of
a
gyrocompass
and what the difference
was
between
an
"azimuth-
top"
("Azimut-Kreisel")
and
a
"meridian-top"
("Meridiankreisel").
[4]The
lawyer Hugo
Licht
represented
Anschütz
&
Co.
[5]In question
2a
the
court inquired
about the differences between the
compass patented by
Anschütz and other
designs,
in
particular
the
one
patented by
the Dutchman Marinus Gerardus
van
den Bos
in
1885,
that
was
later
acquired
by
Siemens and Halske.
[6]See
Doc.
19,
Einstein's
supplementary expert opinion,
for
a
different conclusion.
[7]In
question
2b
the
court
asked
whether
the first
Anschütz
patent actually
referred
to
"meridian-tops."
[8]At
this
point
in
the
original
text
Einstein indicates
a
note
he has
appended
at
the foot of
the
page:
"Die
diesbezüglichen Ausführungen
von
Herrn Dr.
Seligsohn
vom
8.
Dezember
1914
sind sachlich
unrichtig.
Nach der
Ansicht des
Sachverständigen
hätte
das
Patentamt
das Patent
wegen Mangels an
Neuheit
verweigert,
wenn
über die
Wirkungsweise
Klarheit
geherrscht
hätte."
Seligsohn
was
one
of the
lawyers
of the
Sperry company.
[9]Question
2c
was
only
of relevance
in
the
case
of
a
negative
answer
to
2b. In
it
the
court
asked whether the
insights underlying
the
compass
patented
by
Anschütz would
constitute
a
significant step
forward if
applied to
a
"meridian-compass."
[10]In question
2d
the
court
asked whether in view
of
the
general
contents
of
the first
patent
the word "not"
("nicht")
on
its
p.
46 should
be
considered
a
printing
error.
[11]In
question 3
the
court inquired
about the
essence
of the invention described
in
the
second
patent.
It further
posed
the
question
whether this invention made
possible
for the first
time the construction of
a
gyrocompass,
which
might
function
flawlessly
in
all
respects.
Finally,
it asked whether the
improvement
provided
by
the invention
was
based
on
the
damping
of the oscillations around the meridian
or
lay
in
the
design
of
the
actual
damping
mechanism.
[12]In
question
4
the
court
asked for
a
description
of
the
Sperry compass
and of the simila-
rities and differences in
construction between its
design
and that of Anschütz. It also asked
whether
the
Sperry compass
used the features described in the
two patents
of Anschütz
in
a
way
that
was
technically
similar
to
their
use
in
the Anschütz
compass.
[13]See
note
2.
[14]The
sale
by Sperry
in
May
1914
of
a
gyrocompass to
the German
Navy
had
prompted
Anschütz
to begin judicial procedures against Sperry.
[15]See Doc.
19,
Einstein's
supplementary opinion,
for the
outcome
of this
test.