A Review of the Henry Goebel Defense of 1893


A picture of Henry Goebel, as well as some additional references that pertain to the 1893 litigation, are added to this existing write-up. The picture was scanned from the Western Electrician, Vol 13, No 25, Dec 16, 1893, pg 307.

References re Goebel in Western Electrician (WE)
"Incandescent Lamp Litigation," WE, Vol 12, No 5, Feb 4, 1893, pg 55.
"Incandescent Lamp Litigation," WE, Vol 12, No 16, Apr 22, 1893, pg 207.
"Incandescent Lamp Litigation," WE, Vol 12, No 17, Apr 29, 1893, pg 220-221.
"English View of the Incandescent Lamp Situation," WE, Vol 12, No 23, Jun 10, 1893, pg 306.
"Expiration of the English Incandescent Lamp Patent," WE, Vol 13, No 22, Nov 25, 1893, pp 278-279.
"Final Decision in the Hydro-carbon Suit," WE, Vol 13, No 24, Dec 9, 1893, pg 303.
"Henry Goebel," WE, Vol 13, No 25, Dec 16, 1893, pp 307-308.

This review concerns some of the litigations that occurred in 1893 when the Edison Electric Light Company brought suit against several manufacturers of incandescent lamps for apparently infringing Edison patents. Three such companies fought the court battles by declaring the Edison patents null and void because of the same invention 25 years earlier by Henry Goebel. Two of the companies had injunctions brought against them whereas in the other case the judge declined to grant the injunction. That case, which involved the Columbia Incandescent Lamp Company, of St. Louis, Missouri, was not brought to final hearing before the basic Edison filament patent expired in Nov 1894. The fact that the final hearing was never held in the Columbia case has given some people the notion that it is appropriate to give Goebel credit for the invention. This review was undertaken to see if any new insights resulted after an interval of about 108 years.

Some background information on the development of the electric incandescent lamp might offer the reader perspective for the material that is presented below. The first incandescent lamp was probably invented in England in the year 1841 by Frederick de Moleyns. His lamp contained a platinum filament and it marked the beginning of lamp construction as it would eventually be developed. Then, in 1845, John Wellington Starr, an American who traveled to England, suggested the use of carbon as the illuminant 98 . The story of Goebel's work is said to have started about nine years later, in 1854. It is well known that very significant contributions were made later by men like Sawyer and Man, Swan, Maxim, Perkins and others.


The year 1893 was one that is remembered for several reasons. The United States was in a financial panic, President Grover Cleveland began his second term in the White House, and the Columbian Exposition (Chicago's World Fair) opened in May of that year. In addition, the incandescent lamp industry was in the throes of patent litigations, brought about mainly by the Edison Electric Light Company. The Columbian Exposition served as a pleasurable outlet for the citizens in difficult times. The Exposition also provided an opportunity for George Westinghouse to introduce a non-infringing lamp (known as the Westinghouse Stopper Lamp) at a time when the Edison interests controlled a near-monopoly of the lamp industry. The story of the Stopper lamp is an interesting one but it is outside the scope of this writing.

The Edison interests believed that many lamp manufacturers were infringing the Edison lamp patents. That view became clear in May 1885 when suit was brought against the United States Electric Lighting Company. Then, in 1886, E. H. Johnson, President of the Edison Electric Light Company, said 2 :

"The fact that Mr. Edison invented the incandescent lamp in the form in which it is now presented by all electric light companies was so widely proclaimed by the publication thereof in every class of literature at the time of the invention, that it would seem very like an insult to the intelligence of the community to recall it. Indeed, a retrospective view of the history of the great invention is rendered unnecessary by the fact that even the infringing companies themselves do not dwell upon their claim to the ownership of original patents, but fortify their position by the assertion that Edison's patents are invalid and open to the public, and offer in corroboration of their statement the apparent apathy of the Edison Company in the matter of defending them."

However, legal action had started in May 1885 against the United States Electric Lighting Co. 3 . That case persisted for many years, ending finally in the Court of Appeals on Oct 4, 1892 - in favor of Edison 4 . It was after the formation of the General Electric Company in 1892, when the Thomson-Houston Electric Company joined forces with the Edison General Electric Company, that courtroom activity increased significantly. For example, legal proceedings had been initiated against the Mather, Perkins, Sunbeam, Germania, Boston Incandescent Lamp and Sawyer-Man companies.

Some litigations involved the alleged earlier invention of the lamp by Henry Goebel. In order to try to justify the lamps being made, it was claimed that as early as 1854, Goebel, a German immigrant, had made lamps that were in all design aspects exactly like the lamp developed by Edison in 1879, and manufactured in late 1880. That is, the lamp contained a high resistance filament of carbon (the high resistance being necessary, according to Edison, when lamps were to be operated in parallel), platinum lead-in wires in an all-glass envelope, and a high vacuum to prevent disintegration of the carbon; the source of the carbon in late 1880 was bamboo. The complainant found it highly unlikely that an individual with limited financial means, facilities and support personnel could arrive at a design 25 years earlier than that achieved by Edison, which required the synergism of thousands of experiments and numerous technical contributions from highly skilled workers.

The small manufacturer of lamps had a difficult time trying to produce product that did not infringe the Edison patents. It was not until the increased patent litigations of 1893 occurred that attempts were made to develop and sell non-infringing lamps. A notable example of a lamp that was marketed was the so-called Westinghouse Stopper Lamp, which was introduced at the Columbian Exposition. Another stopper lamp was the one manufactured by the Beacon Company. Some lamps were found, upon litigation, to infringe; one such lamp utilized the Edward Pollard silver films in the stem press. Another, called the "Novak", contained a trace of bromine gas. Eventually such lamps disappeared from the marketplace, either because of their inferior performance, higher cost, or patent infringement.

Edison Lamp Patents

Thomas Alva Edison was granted 1093 United States patents during his lifetime. In addition, up until the year 1910 he was granted 1239 foreign patents in 34 countries. Many of the patents dealt with incandescent lamps and associated equipment used in conjunction with the generation of power as well as for the operation of lamps. The basic filament was covered by U.S. Patent No 223,898, which was applied for on Nov 4, 1879 and granted Jan 27, 1880. The patent covering the use of bamboo for the filament, U.S. 251,540, was applied for on Aug 6, 1880 and granted Dec 27, 1881.

As mentioned above, on Oct 7, 1886, E. H. Johnson, published a 25-page booklet that listed Edison patents granted from 1876 to 1886 and showed drawings of the lamps made by the companies that apparently infringed the basic patent 2 . These included the United States Company (Weston lamp), Brush-Swan, two Westinghouse lamps, Bernstein, Mather and Consolidated (Sawyer-Man).

The booklet described the claims of twelve patents that covered the Edison lamp and its component parts. Other patents covered topics such as vacuum pumps, sockets, electric meters, regulators, lamps, chandeliers, batteries, arc lights, electrical conductors, systems of electric lighting and molds for carbonizing. Some of the alleged infringing lamps were illustrated in the booklet and the various infringement locations noted, along with the corresponding Edison patent numbers. The Edison lamp, shown in the Johnson booklet, is reproduced below.

Franklin Leonard Pope

This writer believes that the great emphasis that was placed on Henry Goebel's purported early accomplishments before the lamp litigations of the 1890s, was due in large measure to an article Franklin Leonard Pope (1840-1895) published in the Electrical Engineer in Jan 1893 8 . Pope also provided affidavits for some court proceedings. He was a highly respected person in electrical circles who wrote historical articles on subjects of the day - one dealt with the telegraph - and he was editor-in-chief of the Electrical Engineer in the late 1880s. Pope was also the President of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers in 1886. He wrote a book titled Evolution of the Electric Incandescent Lamp - with two editions appearing 80 . A comment on that book is located in the Discussion section.

Henry Goebel

Henry Goebel (1818-1893) was born on Apr 20, 1818 in Springe, Germany - a village about 15 miles southwest of Hannover 8,9 . In Germany he was known as Heinrich Göbel, his full name being Johann Heinrich Christoph Conrad Göbel 97 . His father was Johann Heinrich Christian (1781-1845) and his mother, Marie Eleonore (1778-1855) 97 ; his father was a landscaper, and later a manufacturer of chocolate.

The following information regarding Goebel was taken from affidavits given for patent litigations (which are included in the References) as well as the above-mentioned article by Pope. The accuracy of the information is uncertain.

In an affidavit, Goebel wrote that he learned the trade of watchmaker and optician in Germany 9 . He became associated with a person there for whom he repaired physical instruments. Supposedly it was from that person that he got the idea of making an electric light by passing an electric current through a carbon conductor placed in a vacuum.

Goebel left Germany with his family in 1848, and after a voyage of about three months, arrived in New York City in the early part of 1849. He resided in the city of New York for the rest of his life. At the time of his death, which was due to pneumonia, seven of his fourteen children survived him 74 .

Goebel Patents

Henry Goebel was granted three U.S. patents. Although it is believed by this writer that the lamp-related ones were of minor importance from a technical standpoint, the dates of application and issue have some significance. The U.S. patents were: No 47,632, Improvement in Hemmers for Sewing Machines, issued May 9, 1865; No 252,658, Vacuum-Pump, issued Jan 24, 1882; No 266,358, Electric Incandescent Lamp, issued Oct 24, 1882.

The subject of the first patent is of no interest in this writing; only the date is of some importance (to be mentioned later). The second patent deals with a minor modification of the vacuum pump developed by Heinrich Geissler (1814-1879) in 1855. That pump design was apparently used by Goebel at a later date to evacuate vessels (thermometers, barometers, lamps, etc) by the Torricellian method. Goebel's third patent consisted of a method of attaching a filament to lead wires in a lamp. It appears to be a modification of methods developed by others. Edison's method consisted of a simple crimping of the lead wire over the filament. While the patent was novel it did not advance the development of the incandescent lamp in any measure. Goebel's patents, then, were awarded in 1865 and 1882.

The "Goebel Defense"

Three litigation cases brought by the Edison interests against lamp manufacturers were challenged in the courts by what became known as the "Goebel defense." All other litigants were concerned with details of the basic Edison patents. Because an alleged infringer achieved little success when a basic patent was the issue, a new approach was taken - and that was to claim that someone else invented the lamp before Edison. If it were true that someone other than Edison invented the lamp then anyone would be free to manufacture and sell incandescent lamps. The three companies were:

Beacon Vacuum Pump and Electrical Company, of Boston

The Beacon Co. was enjoined to engage in lamp manufacture on Feb 18, 1893 24 . Judge L.B.B. Colt, of the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, granted the temporary injunction. Dissolution of the injunction was not sought because a new lamp had been developed by Cary and Nickerson that was believed not to infringe the Edison patent 65 . One year later, in Feb 1894, large numbers of the "New Beacon" lamp were being shipped.

The reasoning of the court in granting the injunction is important to understand. Quoting from the Feb 18, 1893 opinion of the court 24 :

"There is no denial of infringement in the present case under the construction given to the patent in prior adjudications. The contention of the defendants is, that this motion should be denied on the ground that Henry Goebel, a German watchmaker, living in New York, invented the Edison incandescent lamp as early as 1854, and that, therefore, the Edison patent is void for want of novelty, or, at least, must be limited to the coiled form of filament. This is the same line of attack upon the patent which was unsuccessfully made in the case against the United States Electric Company. It was there urged that the Starr lamp of 1845, the Roberts lamp of 1852, the Lodyguine, Konn, and other lamps which appeared between 1872 and 1876, the Bouliguine lamp of 1877, the Sawyer and Man lamp of 1878, and the Edison platinum lamp of 1879, limited the Edison patent to narrow inventions or rendered it void for want of patentable novelty. But the court, with a most exhaustive review of the prior art before it, refused to take this view and held that the second claim of the patent, read with the specification, covered a broad and fundamental invention, namely, an incandescent lamp composed of a carbon filament hermetically sealed in an all glass chamber exhausted to a practically perfect vacuum, and having leading-in wires of platinum...

"By this invention Edison disclosed to the world for the first time a practical, commercial incandescent lamp, adapted for domestic uses. The problem was by no means easy of solution...

"To subdivide the electric light and embody it in a cheap and durable domestic lamp, capable of successfully competing with gas, had for years baffled the science and skill of the most eminent electricians in this country and in Europe. The difficulty lay in the practical construction of a durable incandescent lamp rather than in a knowledge of the elements which should compose such a structure."

Columbia Incandescent Lamp Company, of St. Louis

After the granting of an injunction against the Beacon Vacuum Pump and Electrical Company no one expected the Columbia Company to also take up the Goebel defense during its court proceedings. However, that is exactly what it did. The person behind the drive to again use the Goebel defense was the President of the Company, J. H. Rhotehamel (1857-1898) 42 . Based on the information presented, Judge Moses Hallett of the United States Circuit Court, for the Eastern District of Missouri, denied the granting of an injunction 38 .

After the injunction was denied, the burden of proof rested with the Columbia Incandescent Lamp Company; it had to produce sufficient testimony to prove their allegation that Henry Goebel was the inventor of the incandescent lamp. That meant a delay of many months, at a minimum, before a trial could begin. Time was to run out, however, for the filament patent was to expire the following year. It should be emphasized, however, that Judge Hallett's only decision was simply not to grant an injunction. The headlines in an article in the Electrical Review of Apr 29, 1893 stated that Judge Hallett believed Goebel's lamp preceded Edison's. That is a misstatement of Judge Hallett's decision.

A picture of some Goebel lamps used in that litigation is presented below. Apparently it is the same photograph that was used by Dodd in his book, which was published in 1910 94 . When the picture was discovered in an archive it was noticed that the filaments of some of the lamps had been inked in on the print. It should be pointed out that some of these lamps apparently were made for the purpose of presentation in the court proceedings; this fact was brought out in the affidavits.

The Oconto Case - Electric Manufacturing Company, of Oconto

The third lamp manufacturer to use the Goebel defense during alleged infringement proceedings was the Electric Manufacturing Company of Oconto, Wisconsin. That litigation became known as the "Oconto Case." A temporary injunction was granted Jul 20, 1893 by Judge William H. Seaman of the United States Circuit Court in Milwaukee 56 . The decision was reaffirmed May 9, 1894 85 ; that opinion was written by Judge James G. Jenkins of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals just six months before the expiration date of the Edison patent.

In the opinion of the court 20 :

"It has often been laid down that a meritorious invention is not to be defeated by something which rests in speculation or experiment, or which is rudimentary or incomplete. The law requires not conjecture, but certainty. It is easy after an important invention has gone into public use for persons to come forward with claims that they invented the same thing years before, and to endeavor to establish this by the recollection of witnesses as to events long past. Such evidence is to be received with great caution, and the presumption of novelty arising from the grant of the patent is not to be overcome except upon the most clear and convincing proof."

Printed Criticisms of the Goebel Case

After the favorable article by Franklin Pope appeared in the Electrical World, and after the affidavits given by him in court litigations, Park Benjamin (1849-1922), an author and patent attorney, published a scoffing article in the Electrical World that mentioned (and perhaps compared) Goebel with one Daniel Drawbaugh, who lost the legal battle regarding the invention of the telephone to Alexander Graham Bell 16 . In addition, the London Lighting published a "witty" article about the litigation involving Goebel, which was reported in the Electrical Review, Apr 1, 1893 30 .

Expiration of the Edison Filament Patent

The basic filament patent granted to Thomas Edison that was at issue in much litigation, was No 223,898, dated Jan 27, 1880. Ordinarily such a patent would have been in effect for 17 years but a ruling existed which stated that a patent would expire at an earlier time if a foreign patent on the same invention were to expire before the normal period of 17 years passed. As it happened, a similar patent was granted in Canada on Nov 19, 1879; that patent expired Nov 19, 1894. The Edison U.S. patent No 223,898 therefore expired on that same date, Nov 19, 1894.

Dates of Legal Decisions

The dates of some of the legal decisions, when the Edison group brought suit to obtain restraining orders and injunctions against alleged infringers who used the Goebel defense, are listed below:

On Jan 16, 1893 a restraining order was requested against Beacon 7
On Jan 17, 1893 a restraining order was issued against Columbia 6,34
On Feb 18, 1893 a preliminary injunction was granted against Beacon 20
On Apr 21, 1893 a preliminary injunction was denied against Columbia 38
On Jul 20, 1893 a preliminary injunction was granted against Electric Mfg. Co. 56
On May 9, 1893 the injunction was sustained against Electric Mfg. Co. 85


The question of the invention of the practical incandescent lamp was determined in the courts and Thomas Edison is recognized as the true inventor. However, one is obliged to consider the decision made on Apr 21, 1893 as it regards the Columbia Incandescent Lamp Company. It is important, therefore, to comment on that decision as well as Henry Goebel's place in incandescent lamp history.

It would be a large undertaking to obtain and read all the affidavits and arguments that took place during the three litigation cases that involved the Goebel defense in 1893. In addition, this writer is not competent enough to second-guess three jurists. A "final" comment that sums up the conclusion of the court during the appeal of the Oconto case was 85 :

"The conclusions reached by the court are, that without assuming the story of Goebel's invention to be untrue, it is surrounded by such an atmosphere of improbability that until it is thoroughly sifted and sustained upon final hearing, the claim ought not to be allowed to stand in the way of a patent which has already safely passed the ordeal of judicial scrutiny."
Although an injunction in the Columbia case did not take place, perhaps because of the impending expiration of the patent, an appeal in the Oconto case was made and, in effect, that result could speak for the three cases that used the so-called Goebel defense. In that regard it is of interest to quote from the article titled "Judge Seaman's Opinion", which was published in the Electrical World on Jul 29, 1893 57 . It read, in part:

"When what has since become known as the Goebel defense was first introduced in the Beacon case at Boston, Judge Colt held that the burden of proof being on the defendants to show 'beyond a reasonable doubt' Goebel's priority of invention. He said in his opinion that the quality and quantity of the defendants' evidence were not sufficiently clear and convincing as to be beyond a reasonable doubt, and according to his interpretation of the law complainants were therefore entitled to an injunction. Judge Hallett, in the Columbia case at St. Louis, also passed upon the Goebel defense, but while agreeing with Judge Colt as to the character of the evidence presented, interpreted the law differently and decided that on the showing made the complainants were not entitled to an injunction. Judge Seaman follows Judge Colt in his decision, and says that 'it is clear that the presumption must be in favor of the patent, and that it cannot be overthrown by a mere doubt,' and adds that new evidence in such a case 'must be sufficient to raise a presumption that it would have defeated the patent had it been produced at the trial. This would demand, at least, the full measure required to overcome the presumptive force of the patent, and that every reasonable doubt be resolved against the defense.' Then, while admitting that the Goebel story 'is interesting, circumstantial and in many respects plausible,' he goes on to show that doubts exist, and decides that the complainant is entitled to an injunction."
Comments will now be made regarding aspects of the story that cast some doubt in the writer's mind, on the possibility of a practical lamp being made by Goebel that antedated the one by Edison. Several aspects of the story are troubling; not all of them will be addressed here. Some of the troubling aspects that are made here were also pointed out in the litigations.

It would be unrealistic not to believe that Henry Goebel was a very talented experimenter at the workbench. He learned by doing and his ability in glass working was notable. Apparently he possessed a curious mind, was intelligent and personable. It should also be believed that he made incandescent lamps and perhaps Geissler tubes. In the days before the year 1879 it seems likely that he might have made incandescent lamps with platinum filaments. Although platinum cannot be raised in temperature to the same extent as carbon (and, therefore will not provide as much light output), such a lamp had practical advantages. Goebel evacuated lamps by the Torricellian method, which, in general would not be adequate for lamps containing filaments that react severely with air. That is, because mercury, glass, lead wires and filament materials contain occluded gases, those parts would have had to be baked out under vacuum conditions; that would have been difficult for Goebel to do in the 1850s. However, that would not have been a problem with a platinum filament as it can be operated in air for some time. William R. Grove made such a lamp in the year 1840, it being reported in the Philosophical Magazine in the year 1845 80 . Platinum wire would have been easily obtained between the years 1854 and 1879.

It was said that Goebel operated his lamps with batteries as the power source; he was not concerned with "subdividing the light" whereby lamps could be operated in parallel. The operation of a lamp with any filament material would be possible without the need to have a high resistance. A high resistance filament can be obtained by having the electrical conductor in wire form that has a small diameter and long length. It was difficult to make a satisfactory carbon filament in wire form before the advent of bamboo, and one would probably not attempt to make such a conductor without good reason.

Goebel did apply for, and was granted, a patent on a sewing machine hemmer in 1865. This writer is troubled by the fact that he did not apply for a lamp patent before 1881 or 1882; certainly that inaction, on his part, raises a question about the nature of the electric lights he was constructing.

Most of what can be documented about Goebel's lamp activities occurred after about 1881. This is an important point because Edison had already developed his lamp by 1879 and found bamboo to be an ideal filament material by 1880. Goebel did have access to the Edison developments regarding the incandescent lamp - perhaps through the German language newspaper New Yorker Staats-Zeitung. Also, he was employed for a period of time, about 1881, by a lamp making company, the American Electric Light Company, when he worked on carbon filaments 15 . Many of the affidavits submitted in the Beacon, Columbia as well as the Oconto case were by relatives of Goebel and other persons who were not particularly sophisticated as it regarded technical devices, such as lamps. The information that was presented in the three cases was of questionable accuracy and was circumstantial. Apparently Goebel did not exhibit an electric lamp to the public until May 1882 12 .

Although Franklin Leonard Pope wrote a favorable article about Goebel in Jan 1893, it appears he had met Goebel only a few weeks before that writing 19 . In the first edition of his book, Evolution of the Electric Incandescent Lamp, which was published in 1889, Goebel's name was not mentioned. In the second edition, which was published in Jan 1894, it still was not mentioned 80 . One might surmise that after the litigations of 1893 Pope revised his view of Goebel's alleged contribution to the development of the incandescent lamp. An updated preface, which was dated, appeared in the second edition.

In conclusion, the name of Henry Goebel probably should not be listed with the more significant names associated with the incandescent lamp - such as Starr 98, Sawyer-Man, Swan and countless others. His is an interesting story but it lacks the documentation needed to put much credence in it; perhaps if certain conditions had been different for him, such as economic, language and purpose, his name could be included among those who contributed to the development of an important invention. One judicial decision not to grant an injunction does not mean that Henry Goebel should be given credit for unsubstantiated achievements. In their book, Edison - His Life and Inventions, Dyer, Martin and Meadowcroft quote, on page 726, Major Sherbourne B. Eaton, an attorney 95 .

"The Goebel case emphasizes two defects in the court procedure in patent cases. One is that they may be spun out almost interminably, even, possibly, to the end of the life of the patent; the other is that the judge who decides the case does not see the witnesses. That adverse decision at St. Louis would never have been made if the court could have seen the men who swore for Goebel. When I met F. P. Fish on his return from St. Louis, after he had argued the Edison side, he felt keenly that disadvantage, to say nothing of the hopeless difficulty of educating the court."


(Reference abbreviations: EE = Electical Engineer ; EW = Electrical World ; SLPD = St. Louis Post-Dispatch ; ER = Electrical Review ; E = Electricity ; NYW = New York World)

  1. "Edison's Electric Light," Francis R. Upton, Scribner's Monthly, Feb 1880, pg 531.
  2. The Edison Electric Light - The Legal and Commercial Status, E. H. Johnson, Oct 7, 1886, 25 pages.
  3. "The Edison Incandescent Lamp Litigation - I," EE, Jun 10, 1891, pg 660.
  4. "A Broad Decision on Appeal Awarding the Incandescent Lamp to Edison," EE, Oct 4, 1892, pg 331.
  5. "The Incandescent Lamp Situation," EW, Jan 14, 1893, pg 33.
  6. "Temporary Injunction Granted Against an Incandescent Light Company," SLPD, Jan 17, 1893, pg 3.
  7. "Incandescent Lamp Litigation in Boston," EE, Vol XV, No 246, Jan 18, 1893, pg 70.
  8. "The Carbon Filament Lamp of 1859 - The Story of an Overlooked Invention," Franklin Leonard Pope, EE, Vol XV, No 247, Jan 25, 1893, pg 77.
  9. "Incandescent Lamp Litigation - Henry Goebel, A New Claimant for Priority," EE, Vol XV, No 247, Jan 25, 1893, pg 95.
  10. "Incandescent Lamp Litigation, The Goebel Defense - Edison Electric Light Company (General Electric Company) vs Beacon Vacuum Pump and Electrical Company in U.S. Circuit Court, Boston, Jan 24 and 25," EE, Vol XV, No 248, Feb 1, 1893, pg 120.
  11. "Goebel," EE, Vol XV, No 248, Feb 1, 1893, pg 110.
  12. "The Latest Electric Light," EE, Vol XV, No 248, Feb 1, 1893, pg 121 - reprinted from NYW, May 1, 1882.
  13. "On a New Claim - The Columbia Incandescent Light Co. Fighting the Edison Patents," SLPD, Feb 1, 1893, pg 5.
  14. "The Lamp Situation," EW, Vol XXI, No 5, Feb 4, 1893, pg 77.
  15. "The Edison Lamp Patent," EW, Vol XXI, No 25, Feb 4, 1893, pg 78.
  16. "Concerning the Latest Claimant," Park Benjamin, EW, Vol XXI, No 5, Feb 4, 1893, pg 80.
  17. "Goebel's Incandescent Lamp and Filament Planar," EE, Vol XV, No 249, Feb 8, 1893, pg 148.
  18. "Incandescent Lamp Litigation, The Goebel Defense - Edison Electric Light Company (General Electric Company) vs Beacon Vacuum Pump and Electrical Company in U.S. Circuit Court, Boston, Feb 1 and 2, 1893,"EE, Vol XV, No 249, Feb 8, 1893, pg 149.
  19. "The Edison Lamp Patent - Additional Affidavits," EW, Vol XXI, No 6, Feb 11, 1893, pg 102.
  20. Legal Notes, Incandescent Lamp Litigation, "An Injunction Granted Against the Beacon Vacuum Pump and Electrical Co. - The Goebel Claims Rejected," EE, Vol XV, No 251, Feb 22, 1893, pg 188.
  21. The Lamp Decision," EW, Vol XXI, No 8, Feb 25, 1893, pg 142.
  22. "Judge L.B.B. Colt," ER, Vol XXII, Feb 25, 1893, pg 3.
  23. "One Year of Electricity," ER, Feb 25, 1893, pg 9.
  24. "Edison Again - Judge Colt Grants Another Injunction - The Beacon Company, of Boston, Enjoined, and Goebel's Claims and Those of his Witnesses and Experts Discredited," ER, Vol XXII, Feb 25, 1893, Supplement.
  25. Correspondence, The Beacon Vacuum Pump and Electric Company, "Now That the Decision...,"ER, Vol XXII, Mar 4, 1893, pg 35.
  26. "Incandescent Lamp Litigation - Edison Electric Light Company vs Beacon Vacuum Pump and Electrical Company," EE, Vol XV, No 254, Mar 15, 1893, pg 274.
  27. "The Incandescent Lamp Situation," EW, Vol XXI, No 12, Mar 25, 1893.
  28. "Incandescent Lamp News from Boston," ER, Vol XXII, Mar 25, 1893, pg 75.
  29. "The Incandescent Lamp Situation," EW, Vol XXI, No 13, Apr 1, 1893, pg 244.
  30. "An English View of the Goebel Case," ER, Vol XXII, No 6, Apr 1, 1893, pg 89.
  31. "Dr. Ludwig K. Böhm," ER, Vol 22, No 8, Apr 15, 1893, pg 105.
  32. "The Goebel Case Revived as a Defense in St. Louis," EE, Vol XV, No 259, Apr 19, 1893, pg 391.
  33. "Goebel's Lamp," SLPD, Apr 21, 1893, pg 1.
  34. "Columbia Incandescent Lamp Case" and Columbia Incandescent Lamp Case: Defense and Prosecution," EW, Vol XXI, No 16, Apr 22, 1893, pg 289.
  35. "The Columbia Incandescent Lamp Case," EW, Vol XXI, No 16, Apr 22, 1893, pg 291.
  36. "Early History of the Manufacture of the Goebel Lamp," ER, Vol XXII, No 9, Apr 22, 1893, pg 119.
  37. "The Columbia Lamp Case," ER, Vol XXII, No 9, Apr 22, 1893, pg 120.
  38. "Judge Hallett's Decision Refusing an Injunction Under the Edison Lamp Patent," EE, Vol XV, No 260, Apr 26, 1893, pg 416.
  39. "Judge Hallett's Decision," EW, Vol XXI, No 17, Apr 29, 1893, pg 311.
  40. "Decision in the Columbia Incandescent Lamp Suit," EW, Vol XXI, No 17, Apr 29, 1893, pg 312.
  41. "Effect of Judge Hallett's Decision," EW, Vol XXI, No 17, Apr 29, 1893, pg 312.
  42. "J. H. Rhotehamel, President of the Columbia Incandescent Lamp Company," EW, Vol XXI, No 17, Apr 29, 1893, pg 313.
  43. "Praise for the St. Louis Lamp Report," EW, Vol XXI, No 17, Apr 29, 1893, pg 313.
  44. "Henry Goebel," EW, Vol XXI, No 18, Apr 29, 1893, pg 332.
  45. "Columbia Wins! - Heinrich Goebel's Lamp Again in Court and the Judge Believes It Preceded Edison's Invention," ER, Vol XXII, No 10, Apr 29, 1893, pg 129.
  46. "What is Thought of the Case in St. Louis" ; "What Edison's Counsel Say" ; "An Early Account of Goebel's Lamp," ER, Vol XXII, No 10, Apr 29, 1893, pg 136.
  47. "The St. Louis Lamp Decision," ER, Vol XXII, No 10, Apr 29, 1893, pg 134.
  48. "The 'Columbian Celebration' in St Louis," EE, Vol XV, No 261, May 3, 1893, pg 444.
  49. "The Incandescent Lamp Situation," EE, Vol XV, No 261, May 3, 1893, pg 426.
  50. Correspondence, J. H. Rhotehamel, ER, Vol XXII, May 13, 1893, pg 159.
  51. "The Oconto Lamp Case," EE, Vol XV, No 266, Jun 7, 1893, pg 562.
  52. "The Lamp Situation from a Canadian Point of View," ER, Vol XXII, Jun 17, 1893, pg 219.
  53. "The Oconto Lamp Case at Milwaukee," EE, Vol XVI, No 271, Jul 12, 1893, pg 44.
  54. "The Oconto Incandescent Lamp Case," EW, Vol XXII, No 3, Jul 15, 1893, pg 45.
  55. "The Oconto Incandescent lamp Case - II," EW, Vol XXII, No 4, Jul 22, 1893, pg 68.
  56. "The Oconto Co. Enjoined from Making Lamps," EE, Vol XVI, No 273, Jul 26, 1893, pg 92.
  57. "Judge Seaman's Opinion," EW, Vol XXII, No 5, Jul 29, 1893, pg 78.
  58. "Edison Company Wins the Oconto Lamp Case," ER, Vol XXII, No 23, Jul 29, 1893, pg 295.
  59. "Judge Seaman and the Evidence" ; "A Word to the General Electric," EW, Vol XXII, No 5, Jul 29, 1893, pg 77.
  60. "Decision in the Oconto Incandescent Lamp Case," EW, Vol XXII, No 5, Jul 29, 1893, pg 86.
  61. "An Analysis of Judge Seaman's Opinion," EW, Vol XXII, No 5, Jul 29, 1893, pg 87.
  62. "The New Beacon Lamp," EW, Vol XXII, No 6, Aug 5, 1893, pg 165.
  63. "The Expiration of the Edison Lamp Patent," EW, Vol XXII, No 7, Aug 12, 1893, pg 112.
  64. "The Goebel Lamp, No 9," J. H. Rhotehamel, EE, Vol XVI, No 276, Aug 16, 1893, pg 162.
  65. "The 'New Beacon' Non-Infringing Incandescent Lamp," EE, Vol XVI, No 277, Aug 23, 1893, pg 169.
  66. Correspondence, re Beacon Vacuum Pump and Electrical Company, ER, Vol XXIII, Aug 26, 1893, pg 7.
  67. "The Expiration of Edison's English Filament Patent," ER, Vol XXIII, Nov 18, 1893, pg 157.
  68. "The English Edison Lamp Patent," EW, Vol XXII, No 21, Nov 18, 1893, pg 391.
  69. "Edison Patent Suit," EW, Vol XXII, No 22, Nov 25, 1893, pg 407.
  70. "The Oconto Incandescent Lamp Case," EW, Vol XXII, No 22, Nov 25, 1893, pg 408.
  71. "Henry Goebel Dead," SLPD, Dec 5, 1893, pg 1.
  72. Correspondence, re The Columbia Incandescent Lamp Company, ER, Vol XXIII, Dec 6, 1893, pg 189.
  73. "Henry Goebel," EE, Vol XVI, No 293, Dec 13, 1893, pg 517.
  74. "Obituary," E, Vol V, No 22, Dec 13, 1893, pg 261.
  75. "Obituary - Henry Goebel," ER, Vol 23, No 17, Dec 13, 1893, pg 198.
  76. re Henry Goebel, ER, Vol 23, No 17, Dec 13, 1893, pg 200.
  77. "Death of Henry Goebel," EW, Vol XXII, No 26, Dec 16, 1893.
  78. "A Western Lamp Factory," EW, Vol XXII, No 26, Dec 23, 1893, pg 483.
  79. "Columbia Lamps Reduced in Price," ER, Vol 24, Jan 10, 1894, pg 15.
  80. Evolution of the Electric Incandescent Lamp, Franklin Leonard Pope, Boschen & Wefer Printers and Publishers, New York, 2nd Edition, 1894.
  81. "The Buckeye Decision - Full text of Judge Ricks' Decision Dissolving the Temporary Injunction Against the Buckeye Electric Company, of Cleveland, O.," ER, Vol 24, No 5, Jan 31, 1894, pg 52.
  82. New England Notes (Beacon Vacuum Pump & Electrical Co.), EE, Vol XVII, No 300, Jan 31, 1894, pg 104.
  83. "Judge Acheson and Judge Hallett," EW, Vol XXIII, Feb 10, 1894, pg 171.
  84. "The Goebel Lamp Story," EW, Vol XXII, No 8, Feb 24, 1894, pg 248.
  85. "The Injunction Against the Oconto Co. Sustained - Edison Electric Co. vs Electric Mfg. Co.," EE, Vol XVII, No 314, May 9, 1894, pg 420.
  86. "Incandescent Lamp Litigation," EW, Vol XXIII, No 19, May 12, 1894, pg 634.
  87. "The Oconto Lamp Case," EW, Vol XXIII, No 19, May 12, 1894, pg 636.
  88. "The Columbia High Economy Incandescent Lamp," ER, Vol 25, Aug 1, 1894, pg 57.
  89. "The Incandescent Lamp Patent," EW, Vol XXIV, No 20, Nov 17, 1894, pg 511.
  90. "The Edison Lamp Patent on the Incandescent Electric Lamp," SLPD, Nov 18, 1894, pg 9.
  91. "Where Are We At?," EE, Vol XVII, No 342, Nov 21, 1894, pg 419.
  92. "Obituary - J. H.Rhotehamel," EE, Vol XXV, No 512, Feb 24, 1898, pg 218.
  93. "The Development of the Manufacture of the Edison Incandescent Electric Lamp - 1881-1905," J. T. Marshall, Journal of the Franklin Institute, Vol CLX, No 955, Jul 1905, pg 21.
  94. Developing an Industry, Philip S. Dodd, The Curtis Press, Detroit, 1910.
  95. Edison, His Life and Inventions, Frank Lewis Dyer, Thomas Commerford Martin, William Henry Meadowcroft, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1929.
  96. The Electric-Lamp Industry: Technological Change and Economic Development from 1800 to 1947, Arthur A. Bright, Jr., The MacMillan Co., New York, 1949.
  97. "Goebel," Neue Deutsche Biographie, Sechter Band, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, 1964, seite 503.
  98. "J.W. Starr: Cincinnati's Forgotten Genius," Charles D. Wrege, The Cincinnati Historical Society Bulletin, Vol 34, Summer 1976, No 2, pg 103.