In the last installment on the Benjamin F. Miessner papers, we explored the life cycle of an invention, from conception to testing, patenting, and sale. We also touched on the legal troubles that an inventor could find themselves embroiled in, both as the prosecutor and the defendant in infringement suits. The legal suits discussed last time were professional in nature and not highly publicized, as was the case with most of Miessner’s court cases. This was not always true, however, as Miessner also had a deeply personal feud with a fellow inventor, John Hays Hammond, Jr., which led to repeated legal action and public debate.

From 1911-1912, Miessner was in the employ of John Hays Hammond, Jr., with whom he worked on the development of wireless radio-controlled torpedoes for submarines – a study Miessner referred to as “radiodynamics.” Although the two men got along well at the start, they parted on bitter terms, with Miessner accusing Hammond of denying him credit for his inventions, which Hammond had been patenting in his own name, as well as reneging on a promise to finance Miessner’s college education.

While attending Purdue University after leaving Hammond’s employ, 1913-1916, Miessner was involved in a series of legal and personal battles with Hammond. In 1913, Hammond sought to obtain a written promise from Miessner that he would not patent or disclose any of the ideas he had developed while working for Hammond; a request which Miessner refused. Going a step further, Miessner gave several lectures on devices he developed with Hammond throughout 1913, and published an article in the Purdue Engineering Review on Hammond’s radio-controlled torpedoes in 1915.

During this same period (1913-1916), Hammond sought to sell the patents he made from his and Miessner’s work to the United States (U.S.) Government, which Miessner among others sought to block legally. Miessner, tied up with schoolwork and lacking financial means, utilized Simon Flexner, the uncle of one of his fraternity brothers and head of the Rockefeller Foundation for Medical Research, to hamper Hammond’s efforts. This was ultimately futile for Miessner, as Hammond had immured his patents in the archives of the Patent Office, where they were immune to interference proceedings.

From about 1914 to 1919, Hammond attempted on multiple occasions to acquire Miessner’s notebooks from his time working under Hammond; either for use in his negotiations with the U.S. government, and/or to prevent Miessner from using them against him. After some cordial requests, Hammond became increasingly frustrated with Miessner’s lack of cooperation, threatening legal action if Miessner did not comply. Miessner, for his part, ignored or outright refused all of Hammond’s requests, holding his notebooks close to his chest.

In 1915, Miessner attempted to publish a book, “Radiodynamics, the wireless control of torpedoes and other mechanisms,” detailing among other things his work with Hammond on radio-controlled torpedoes. Although Hammond initially gave permission to describe work Miessner completed for him, he later interfered with the book, threatening both the publishers and Miessner with legal action should they make his private work public. After being permitted to review a draft for the book, Hammond let up on his efforts to prevent publication, but again threatened legal action if any of his more recent work were to make its way into the book. This interference delayed publication until 1916.

After several rounds of threatened legal action, Miessner and Hammond first came to actual legal blows, albeit indirectly, throughout the mid-1920s, when the Radio Corporation of American (RCA) sued the George Walker Company for patent infringement. Although various patents were used by RCA in the suit to support their claims, two of them belonged to Hammond Jr., who was a director of RCA at the time. This decision brought Miessner into the case, leading him to testify in 1927 on behalf of the George Walker Company, where he asserted that he was the true inventor of the claims in Hammond’s patents, and Hammond had appropriated his work. By August 1927, RCA had dropped the Hammond patents from the suit, and the case as a whole was dropped in June 1929. Although Hammond never took part personally in the case, he did have two men, Edward H. Loftin and E.S. Purington, offer affidavits disputing Miessner’s testimonies in the George Walker case and an earlier case between RCA and Splitdorf. Interestingly, these affidavits weren’t made until 1938, 11 years after Miessner’s 1927 testimonies in the above cases. Even more interesting, Loftin had been Miessner’s patent lawyer from 1925-1930, and had represented Miessner in both cases!

In 1939, Miessner and Hammond Jr. were again entangled in a legal dispute, when Hammond brought charges against several electronic piano companies utilizing Miessner’s patents, for infringing upon his own patents. Unlike the previous instance, a suit was not levied against the companies, with many of the companies choosing instead to enter formal discussions with the lawyers for both inventors. Miessner’s papers do not provide insight into how this case ultimately ended, although it indicates that several of the companies chose to license Hammond’s patents in addition to Miessner’s, in order to avoid a potentially more costly legal suit. Other companies seemed more inclined to believe that Hammond patents weren’t relevant to their products, although it’s unclear if they ultimately yielded to Hammond’s demands.

The final dispute between Miessner and Hammond took place between 1957 and 1964. It was initiated when Hammond, along with the previously mentioned E.S. Purington, published an article in the September 1957 Proceedings of the IRE (Institute for Radio Engineers), in which they patted themselves on the back for their “pioneering” role in the development of modern radio-electronic technology. This upset a number of inventors, who were quick to respond. Lloyd Espenschied, a member of IRE’s History Committee and friend of Miessner’s, wrote a lengthy critique of the paper’s claims in December of 1957, to be published in the IRE’s proceedings in July 1959. This led to a series of back-and-forth articles between the duo of Hammond and Purington and Espenschied, continuing until 1962. Lee de Forest, a prominent inventor in the same field as Miessner and Hammond, chose not to write a formal response, but in a letter to Miessner described the Hammond-Purington article as “evidently grotesque and arrogantly conceited,” and hoped “Hammond’s grotesque designs and claims be torn to tatters by the letters of Espenschied and yourself.”

For his part, Miessner wrote a 110-page rebuttal to the Hammond-Purington article in January 1958, but found that its length prevented the IRE from accepting it for their proceedings. After some discussions with members of the IRE, including Lloyd Espenschied and fellow IRE History Committee member Haraden Pratt, Miessner chose to drop the subject, as he did not wish to edit the manuscript down to a length befitting the IRE’s proceedings. The matter then lay dormant until 1962, when the IRE awarded Hammond its Medal of Honor, reigniting Miessner’s indignation. In response, Miessner once again dug up his 1958 rebuttal and tried to have the IRE (during this time merged with the American Institute of Electrical Engineers to form the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE) publish it. Espenschied and Pratt both maintained their stances on its ineligibility for the proceedings, but suggested it might suit a book format.

Towards this end, Miessner partnered with Dr. Charles Süsskind of the University of California, Berkley, who recommended Miessner to a publisher, and agreed to work as his editor. The pair worked together throughout 1963, with Süsskind rearranging Miessner’s 1958 manuscript to be chronological and trimming the fat from it, while Miessner provided references and additional information to clarify certain points and place emphasis on the aspects of his original manuscript that he felt were most important. The resulting book, “On the Early History of Radio Guidance,” was published in 1964, with complimentary copies sent to all 1,112 U.S. members of the IEEE, at Miessner’s expense. It received a minor rebuttal from Hammond, in the form of a 1964 reprinting of “The History of the Intermediate Frequency,” consisting primarily of Loftin and Purington’s 1938 affidavits against Miessner.

This marked the end of the pair’s long-running rivalry, as Hammond passed away on February 12, 1965, before any further debate between the two men could commence. It was Miessner’s desire that a historian would one day review the record and set straight, once and for all, who was responsible for the developments of the radio and electronics fields. To date, it is believed that this work has not yet been undertaken. Perhaps someone amongst you, dear readers, might be able to give this rivalry the conclusion Miessner desired?

Miessner may never have met Hammond, nor gained the skills to become an inventor, had he not decided to join the United States Navy right out of high school. It was through the Navy that he gained his first formal education in electricity, and brushed shoulders with engineers and inventors who would have a great impact on Miessner and his trajectory in life. Tune in next week for the final installment in this three-part spotlight on the Benjamin F. Miessner papers, where we will explore Miessner’s formative years in the Navy.

The Benjamin F. Miessner papers are available for research in the Purdue University Archives and Special Collections reading room.

MSP 2, Benjamin F. Miessner papers, Purdue University Archives and Special Collections, Purdue University Libraries.