ELMORE v. THE SULPHIDE CORPORATION, LTD. The Elmore company filed a writ in Australia alleging that the Sulphide Corporation is infringing the Elmore patents by the use of the Minerals Separation process. The case came to trial in New South Wales, and was decided in favour of the Sulphide Corporation, but an appeal to the Privy Council is now pending.

POTTER v. THE SULPHIDE CORPORATION, LTD. The Potter Sulphide Process Co. filed a writ in Australia alleging that the Sulphide Corporation is infringing the Potter patents by the use of the Minerals Separation process. This suit has now been withdrawn as a result of the amalgamation of the interests involved.

MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., v. DE BAVAY. The Minerals Separation, Ltd., filed a writ in Australia alleging that the Amalgamated Zinc, Ltd., is infringing the Minerals Separation patents by the use of the De Bavay process. This suit also has been withdrawn as a result of the amalgamation of the interests involved.

MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD., v. HYDE. The Minerals Separation has brought a suit against James M. Hyde alleging infringement on the Butte and Superior mine, in Montana, U.S.A.

All this mass of litigation is inconclusive. No one of these suits would involve a decision on all the patents. In fact, if all the law-suits already started were brought to a final decision it is doubtful whether the public would know whether they could use the processes of the successful litigants without fear of further litigation. If the whole situation could be placed before a competent court to decide on merit it would be far preferable to the engineer, but it might be less acceptable to the legal profession, for obvious reasons.