# Appendix — Ex parte Phillips

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385610_0072%3A02

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1943
- **Citation:** 320 U.S. 714

## Text

n0 Court if “the United States «

OCTOBER TERM, 1942

Ne.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Petitioner,

vs.

THE GORDON FORM LATHE COMPANY,
Respondent.

Transcript of Record

ip) Beticien Sor Witt of Cortienert to tho Und States Ciceult
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

VOLUME I.
Defendant’s Record (Continued).

I. Josern Fanzey,
1664 National Bank Bldg.,
Detroit, Michigan,

Cooper, Kerr & Dunnam,
Woolworth Bldg., 233 Broadway,
New York, New York,

Attorneys for Petitioner.

oe. Lecuer, Micuart, Wurtz & Spony,
3 110 East Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, Wisconsin,

Ricuzy & Warts,
Union Commerce Bldg., Cleveland, Ohio,

ee » Swan, Fave & Hanpesty,
- Ford Bldg., Detroit, Michigan,
_ — Attorneys for Respondent.

United States Circuit Court of Appeals

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.

THE GORDON FORM LATHE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee,

Vs.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant.

Eevity No. 4564.

AprraL From
Tue District Covert or THE Unitep States,
Eastern District or MICHIGAN,
SovuTHERN Division.

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD.
VOLUME II.
Defendant’s Record (Continued).

Lecuer, MicnaeL, Wuyte & Spon,
110 East Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, Wisconsin,

Ricuey & Watts,
Union Commerce Bldg., Cleveland, Ohio,

Swan, Frye & Harpesty,
Ford Bldg., Detroit, Michigan,
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant and
Cross-Appellee.

Bopman, Lonctey, Bocie, Mippteton & Far ey,
1400 Buhl Bldg., Detroit, Michigan,

Cooper, Kerr & DunHam,
Woolworth Bldg., 233 Broadway,

New York, New York,

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee and
Cross-Appellant.

_

INDEX.

VOLUME I.

Trial Papers, Plaintiff’s Record and Part of
Defendant’s Record.

O03 | 1
Decree on Mandate ...........cceeeeceeee cere eeeeeeetees 2
Report of Special Master...........ceseeeeeeeeeeeeerenes 4
I. Nature of Invention and History of Litigation and
of Defendant’s Use of Machinery............++++- 5
Te CEE GE PSUR, seco cece cedcccvvcscesecescess 9
III. Accounting Period, and Production of Shafts on In-
fringing Machines: Question of Notice............ 11
A. Beginning of Period.............eeeeeeeeeees 11
B. Production of Camshafts and End of Accounting
EE. Givdeccisscssedidaceurecisipevernesss 15
DPE dd va cebuG dese eda cence b2eeeene cebnesnedees 17
A. Profits from Infringement................+... 18
1. Standard of Comparison...............+.6+- 18
a. Standard for Model A Shaft............ 21
(1) Pioch and Modified Walcott Machines 21
(2) Westinghouse Lathe ............... 24
(3) Ford Cam Shaper.............0.06. 28
b. Standard for Tractor Shaft............. 34
e. Effect of Choice of Incorrect Standard... 35
2. Savings from Use of Infringing Machines... 36
a. Savings or Loss in Other Operations:
I ci 5e crag cdeadteni eesenne 40
b. Savings in Cam-Roughing Operation..... 42
(1) Direct Labor Savings............... 42

I

(a) Speeds of Production on Model T

SEE Wav siveuucdebeverdeccc... 43
(b) Speeds of Production on Model A

eundnd whsdecamewen sive: 44
(c) Speeds of Production on Tractor

WE. Rdedbdduwd deouceedser sos 46

(2) Other Savings: Overhead or Burden 47
(3) Offset of Loss from Scrapping Shap-

GOP Kabreversseedicecseseesbedesens 09
3. Apportionment of Profits.................. 60
V. Damages: Reasonable Royalty................... 71
A. Conditions to Assessment of Reasonable Royalty 73
B. Amount of Royalty...................000055. 74
VI. Questions of Clean Hands and of Increase of Re-
ctpinis MLO E EEL TE TTT eC O TT er Es 81
i EEL vic ce es eed veecuuenccadsemience: 81
B. Increase of Recovery..............0.0ce0e00.. 84
Me MN ons ios Feo eee 93
Schedule A. Production of Camshafts on Infringing Ma-
GUNN Saha bulieesaedeveunerwéianetiac — peace)
EY TOLLE OND PII NS EL NEPA BLSIS CL LD BARE TR

466 Mike Klopsic, Direct Examination

shafts, manufacture of cam shafts. Are you familiar with
the cam shaft department? A. I am ina general way, |
don’t myself at the present time make time studies but I
check them to see that they are fairly balancing with the
actual time paid by the company.

Q. I think for the purpose of making your test per.
haps more readily understandable, I will show you an ex.
hibit which is marked Exhibit 7, and attached to Defend.
ant’s first statement of account which has been introduced
in evidence as Exhibit A, or marked Exhibit A, and I wil]
ask you just what this Exhibit 7, which is entitled ‘Opera.
tion Sheet’’ is, by name cam shaft symbol A-6250. It has
at the bottom of the sheet, ‘‘Revised 7-1-31 by M. K.”’? Who
is M. K.? A. That is me.

Q. Now, did you make that particular time study to
which your initials are attached, or was that made by some-
body under your supervision? A. By one of the men work-
ing under me and on his original would be found his ini-
tials, if that could be procurable,

Q. Now, will you explain in general about that type of
time study and just how they are made? A. This time
study, or any time study under my supervision must be
studied.

We have a ruling that it must be studied a sufficient
length of time, the sequence of the complete operation, until
the observer will find delays, if any, and so record them
with the foreman.

That varies. Shall we Say an operation that will re-
quire (340) 2/10 of a minute, it would be studied generally
at least 10 minutes.

Under no consideration a time study man is to put
down the figures with less than 20 minutes study, when
operations are requiring say four or more minutes, because
we believe it is not possible for the eye to find lost motion,
and the accuracy would be more questionable on the end
of the month when the total hours charged to that part
number and the total time study, then the study would he
then out of balance, if we did not time study long enough.

Q. When you make those time studies are they all
made with a stop-watch? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, as I understand your testimony, your instruc-
tions are that the man must time the operation over a suf-
ficient number of pieces so that he gets a fair record by

Mike Klopsic, Direct Examination 467
use of the time study and the use of the stop-watch? A.

a Now, with respect to that particular time study
which ¥ou have before you, I call your attention to opera-
tion 14 made on July 1, 1931, and can you state whether or
not you know what machine or what operation that is, and
what machine that operation was performed on? A. No, I
can not state on what machine that was performed on, due
to the fact that I myself did not make the time study.

Q. Is that, however, a record from your department
and a record made under your supervision? A. Yes, sir.

The Master: What is the purpose for which you
make these (341) time studies?

A. There are two purposes. For cost accounting and
for elimination of lost motion.

The Master: If one of your men is making a time
study and he discovers for a particular operation there
is considerable unnecessary delay, so that we will say
the operation should be capable of being performed in
half a minute, when actually it is being performed in
one minute on the average, which of the two times
would be set down on the time study as being the time
for the operation?

A. Always the one, the reliable one which is at that
time performed, and not the future one, what it should be.

When it is necessary to make a new time study, which
in the case your Honor specifies we would make a new time
study after the operation has been corrected.

Q. When you make a time study, Mr. Klopsic, or re-
ferring to this particular one Exhibit 7, and I call your
attention to the column under the heading ‘‘ Minutes,’’ just
what does the minutes necessary for this operation 14,
.7143, what does that indicate, machine time or man time?
A. Combined time, handling and machine time.

Q. But the record .7143 is the record of the man, the
entire time on the man to produce one piece, is that correct?
A. That is correct.

Q. Now, do you know what the purpose of making
those time operation sheets is for? For what purpose are
they made? A. They are used in the accounting depart-
ment for cost purposes and on a yearly inventory, for the
inventory in process, pricing.

ILEDLINO LEE GLE GES LAM eee ESTE LOR Bi BE AIP NPIS OD EET IES LTT EMAL: NEL, AT hE

468 Mike Klopsic, Direct Examination

(342) Q. Are they also used in any way by the fore.
men of the various departments? A. They are.

Q. For what purpose, if you know? ,

SE SS POT

Irae Fe PORE AEE

Henry G. Pillinger, Cross Examination 579

A. They would fly around here. In fact, we had a
guide in front to keep the chips from going back in; in fact,
there was a felt in front of this tool holder here, a piece of
felt.

Mr. Farley: That is all, you may cross examine.

I am not sure but I offer these tools in evidence,
Exhibits 243, 244 and 245.

The Master: Exhibits 243 to 245 are admitted as
being (988) tools used in the demonstration of the
Walcott lathe.

Mr. Farley: Attention has been called to the fact,
—I am pretty sure we put in and offered in evidence the
eam shaft, Exhibit 234. I think that is in. I am not
sure whether I offered in evidence the work sheets,
235 and 236 of Mr. Rauser. I think they were offered.

The Master: Yes, they were. I remember as far
as the Walcott—or admission was withheld pending a
showing the machine was in good operating condition.
I will wait until the end of this cross examination to
rule on that.

Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn.

Q. How long would it take to take out those slides in
the Walcotts? A. Take them out and replace them?

Q. Yes. A. You mean to get the machine ready to go?

Q. Yes. A. Around about two and a half, three hours.

Q. How many men did it take? A. Two men.

Q. And, you did that on one machine a day, about?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. When you say a day, do you mean a shift, or
what? . Se *ep my PO” > OPO BREA EIEN 8 NES I LINEN BEAN 6 COIR RRR

584 Henry G. Pillinger, Cross Examination

Mr. Farley: On the one machine you are referring
to now?

A. Yes, sir.

(999) Q. Did you make overhaul records? A. No,
sir.

Q. You didn’t? A. We used to get an order to over-
haul certain machines.

Q. And those were the only ones you overhauled? A.
In fact, it was a standing order to repair the machines.

Q. To repair the machines, But, how about over-
hauling? A. Well, overhauling, whatever you want to
call it.

Q. And, you got a standing order for that? A. Yes.

Q. What do you mean by a standing order, was it every
three weeks? A. Well, they got the standing orders for
all machines—like the job I am on now. I got a new order
about every, say, probably two months, and any overhauling
work that has to be done on (1000) that machine is done on
this particular order. It is made up by the office.

Q. Is that a written order? A. It is a written order,

Q. Were these machines taken into the tool shop for
overhauling without a written order on any occasion? A,
Not that I know of.

Q. Every time they were overhauled, there was a writ-
ten order, is that right? A. Yes, sir, as far as I know. Any
machine that is moved from the department, there is always
a written order on it before they ever move it.

Q. So, you never took it out of production to go into
this tool shop without a written order for it? A. Not to
my knowledge.

Q. And, all the other repair work you did was right on
the floor? A. Just on the floor, yes.

Q. Yes. Who furnished the tool holders, do you know,
when they broke? A. Well, I don’t know whether an out-
side company made the standing order on the tool holders,
but I think in case of emergency we would make them up,
make one up, probably, if we didn’t have any at hand,
you see,

Q. But, you say the greatest difficulty you had with
these machines was the breaking of the springs, is that

ep
. Seas

——7

Henry G. Pillinger, Re-Direct Examination 585

right? A. Yes. Not the greatest difficulty, no; the slides
was one of the main troubles. I wouldn’t say that was the
most important difficulty, the spring.

(1001) Q. And, you clean the slides out of one machine
aday on an average? A. Ina day.

Q. And, I understood you to say you never operated
one of these machines in the production line at all? A.
Not on production; no, sir.

Q. Do you know whether or not when this machine
was pulled off of production in 1931, whether it had been
overhauled recently before that time or not? special purpose machine? A. Yes.

Do you see that? A. Yes.
ve Q. Well, then, after having made the decision that
there should be a special purpose machine, what do you

_ °°»

William F. Pioch, Direct Examination 635

next do with it? A. Why, usually get two or three of my
assistant foremen and we talk the matter over, and decide
just to what—how we are going to design thi. particular
machine, and what principles we (1115) will use, and then
the next thing we do is decide how many men we can put
on that job. We start to make layouts.

Q. That is how many of your draftsmen? / The Master: Now, with your re-designed machine

you have to have the vertical tools moved back as they
did before to get ready for the next cut, and you also
have to have the horizontal tools moved back?

A. Yes, sir.

The Master: Does that increase the time of oper-
ation?

A. No, sir; it does not, because the added tool is in the
same position as the tools that are in the upper head.

680 William F. Pioch, Cross Examination

The Master: It moves back at the same time ag
the upper tools do?

A. That is right. As the work piece carrier carries
back—we will say it is over here. That tool has finished
its cut. We will say that is the last stroke on that machine,
I mean the last cut across there. Then the machine has
to come back over here for the next piece, so this did not
add any more time to the machine, this movement.

Mr. Farley: Let the record show when the witness
said on that machine, he pointed to the Model T cam
shaper, Exhibit 237.

A. Yes.

(1218) Q. (By Mr. Michael): Did the tools in the
shaper as used at the Ford plant raise up away from the
work when the work moved back for another cut? A. On
every cut?

Q. Yes. A. Oh, yes. The whole head moved back,
just, say about two or three thousandths, just enough to
clear the work.

Q. And then also you had this part. A. There was
a hand wheel out here that you could raise this whole head
up.

Q. Those details aren’t on this wooden model? A.
No, but it shows it on the prints.

Q. You had to provide something in the attachment
for withdrawing the tools on the return stroke? A. Yes.

Q. That is not shown in this wooden model? A. No.
On this attachment, if we built a shaper like this, we would
duplicate the same mechanism that we have got on this
head here for moving the tools back on one cut a couple
thousands, the same as they do on the upper head.

‘“ The Master: With your attachment, you have a
movement of the tools the same way you do as with
the original shaper, except it is twice the speed of the
original shaper, because it is moving in the opposite
direction?

A. That is right.
Q. In the original shaper, the tools don’t move at all.

The Master: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Michael: The work piece.

William F. Pioch, Cross Examination 681

The Master: Opposite direction of the movement
of the (1219) work piece?

A. That is right.
The Master: What you really have here with the
attachment is a combination of both a planer and a

shaper?

A. Yes, sir.
The Master: As I understand the two forms of
tools?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. As I understood, these horizontal tools actually
chase the work, finally overtake it and finally overrun it?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you ever see that in a shaper before? A. No,
sir. You see, in a regular shaper your work is stationary
and the tool moves across the work.

Q. Yes. A. In this case, like the Master pointed
out, this is a combination of a planer and a shaper. The
upper head is the planer part, representing the planer part
and the lower head is representing a shaper. In a shaper
the tool moves. This is moving, and in a planer the work
moves and the tool is stationary. That is the upper head.

Q. Where did you get this idea of making the tools
chase the work? A. I believe that was Boesen’s idea.

Q. You didn’t suggest thati A. No, sir.

Q. It never occurred to you? A. Well, no, I would
give him all the credit for that.

Q. It is somewhat similar to these horse-race ma-
chines, isn’t it, where you put a nickel in the slot and one
horse is ahead and (1220) finally another overtakes it? A.
Yes.

Q. That wouldn’t be a bad name for the patent, horse-
race patent? A. I think that is very clever myself.

Q. Wouldn’t that be a good name for it? A. I don’t
know.

Q. It is rather descriptive, don’t you think? A. I
wouldn’t want to give it a name.

The Master: You do have a somewhat more com-
plicated situation with this re-designed tool than you
had with the first; you have more parts?

IYI SIE ADS AE hich SSO aa aakT? SSSA ARIA

682 William F. Pioch, Cross Examination

A. Oh, yes. This would all be additional. That is
obvious.

The Master: It would probably get out of order
more often?

A. Where you have more moving parts you have more
trouble. That always runs hand in hand.

The Master: That attachment, as you operate it,
is in synchronism with the driving mechanism in the
main part of the machine?

A. As I said before there, if we had to design a new
shaper I wouldn’t design it like this. We only show what
could be done if we had the shapers at that time and had
been forced to use them. We would have had more trouble
with those. I can’t see anything else but that, because you
have more moving parts. You have got all that mechanism
that is wearing.

The Master: Would you have more trouble with
the tools themselves breaking? Is there any more
pressure on the tools that might cause difficulty there?

A. I don’t believe so. “~,

(1221) Q. Hadn’t you this diffieulty in this model, Ex-
hibit 256— <A. Yes.

Q. You have six tools bearing down on the top of the
shaft? A. Yes.

Q. The pressure is considerable, isn’t it? A. Yes, it
is.

Q. You have only two tools coming in from the front?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Those relative pressures are very unequal, aren’t
they? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Wouldn’t there be some difficulty in the cutting
operation due to that? A. No. We have got our steady
rest.

Mr. Farley: Just a minute, Mr. Pioch. Suppose
you get a piece of clear paper and make a sketch on
that.

A. All right. We will call that our steady rest here.
The Master: Mark that S.

bi) eee se ad ’
* FOO SSI eee YI ee tal Soe ves G a Loe oP ae

_—_ A EA CATR

William F. Pioch, Cross Examination 683

Q. As you have drawn this slot in here it is much too
high, the way it was? A. It doesn’t have to be that high.

Q. This steady rest here doesn’t even come up to the
center line of the shaft?) A. That is right. Thanks. It
doesn’t have to come any higher anyway.

Q. It has to come up at least to the center of the work
piece?’ A. That is right. I show a clearance there. Now,
here we have the six tools, have we not?

Q. Yes. Just mark that top tool, six top tools. (1222)
A. Six?

Q. Yes. A. Six top tools, and we will represent the
six top tools with six inches, is that all right? I mean as
a line of foree. Now, we have two tools in that direction,
two front in that direction. We will represent them by a
line two inches long.

Q. These are the six top tools? A. Yes, these are the
six top tools. And we will say each tool—well, any amount
of pressure you want on each tool, assume 100 pounds on
each. This would he units. That is a good description.
Units for six top tools. Units for six.

Q. Tools? A. Top tools. Now, then, these tools rep-
resent a force in this direction and those represent a force
in this direction.

The Master: As shown by the arrows?
A. Yes, sir. Now, then, the resultant would be on our
steady rest in that direction.
The Master: Now, you are showing what?
A. I am showing a graphie diagram.
The Master: For the sake of the record the re-

sultant force which you have indicated is on the hypot-
enuse.

A. Of the right angle triangle. Now, if we come hack
and duplicate that same angle on to the steady rest, is that
about right? Parallel?

The Master: That is near enough.

A. That is near enough. What do we get? We get
that force moving originally from a horizontal plane to a
diagonal plane, what we call the tangent, an angle whose
tangent is .3333. That is (1223) changed from this point

684 William F. Pioch, Cross Examination

on the steady rest to a point over there. You can see how
very small that would be.

Q. Mark the first point A and the second one B. A.
First point A and second point B. Now, this point is only
moved on our diagram about Yth of an inch from the cen-
ter line.

Mr. Farley: Refer to the point.

A. Point A is moved from the horizontal center to
point B one-eighth of an inch from A, approximately.

Mr. Farley: Correction there. You said hori-
zontal. You meant vertical?

A. Vertical, yes. So you can see it wouldn’t make
much difference as far as changing conditions of the steady
rest.

The Master: There would be some tendency of
these two front tools to spring the work piece to the
right in your drawing?

A. No, your Honor—yes, you have this much front end
thrust, but the resultant thrust is here.

The Master: Yes, but so far as the front tools,
wouldn’t those spring the work piece?

Mr. Farley: Rearwardly.

The Master: Toward the rear. There is a tend-
ency to put a pressure on the side of the vertical tools,
making an additional pressure to the pressure which
you have as the tools cut on the Model T cam shaper,
which pressure was only upward and backward?

A. That is right.

The Master: And these tools are not designed to
be resistant to a lateral or side pressure, are they?
They would move (1224) more readily as against an
equivalent amount of side pressure as against back-
ward or upward pressure?

A. I don’t know whether I understand. These tools
here don’t affect the cutting tools here.

Mr. Farley: I think I know what the Court has in
mind. Mr. Quaife has in mind the proposition that
your shaper tool in cutting is making the cut on the
side, that is, they are side cutting it?

IE

William F. Pioch, Cross Examination 685

A. Yes.

Mr. Farley: For your point of the tool making it
cut, and then this side edge here doing the cutting,
assuming your shafts were in that direction.

A. Yes.

Mr. Farley: If you add to the other pressures in-
volved a pressure of cutting force of these tools here—

A. Yes.

Mr. Farley: It is going to complicate matters by
the cut that you would be taking at the side edge.

The Master: Yes. I didn’t know the shaper tools
| were cutting on the side.

| A. They do, so that wouldn’t affect the upper tools at
| all, these added tools wouldn’t affect that.
| Q. (By Mr. Michael): These tools you have in this
wooden model are only representative, they are not shaped
like the real shaper. A. This is their shape.
Q. Set in diamond fashion? A. That is right. They
were made—this part? It exactly represents the tools.
(1225) Mr. Farley: With a little side rake on them
in this direction?

A. Yes. Shall we use this sketch?
Mr. Farley: I offer this sketch as Exhibit 263.
(The sketch was marked Exhibit 263.)
The Master: It is admitted.
A. I didn’t measure the length of that resultant line.
Six and one-fourth units. I want to make sure you under-

stand this here. If you had six inches here, that six
inches—

The Master: You mean 600 pounds?

A. In a vertical pressure, that addition of the two
front tools would have moved that force, we will say, to
the right, to the back of the machine, at the angle I gave
there of tangent .3333, and that 600 pounds would have
heen this angle in this direction. We will call it 630 pounds.
6.3 units is the resultant.

The Master: That is it approximately?

QE EE

686 William F. Pioch, Cross Examination

A. Yes. Somebody might figure that out.
The Master: Suppose we take a brief recess.
‘ (Recess. )

/ Q. (By Mr. Michael): For the record, I want to just
bring out, if we can, what has been added to this horse-
race machine. I am not using that in any funny way. I
like it as a descriptive term, as compared to the old shaper.
As I understand your testimony you have added this whole
table that overhangs the front of the machine? A. Yes.

Q. And you have added the tool holders carried by
that table? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you have added the shaft and the master cams
for moving (1226) those tools in and out? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You have added the mechanism for moving the
whole table in and out? A. Yes, sir.

Q. The mechanism for moving the table longitudinally
of the shaft? A. Yes, sir. .

Q. And you have added the gears for synchronizing
the revolution of the master cam with the—in the attach-
ment, with the revolution of the master gam in the machine
proper? A. Correct.

Q. And you have added the mechanism for moving
the—that is, you have added the mechanism for moving the
carriage, the tool carriage of the attachment longitudinally
of the machine? A. Yes. I believe you stated that once.

Q. In addition to that are there any things that you
added as compared to the old shaper? <A. No, sir.

; Q. And you have never done this before? A. No,
sir.

Q. And you have never tried it out? A. No, sir.

Q. And you know nothing in the prior art that sup-
ports or lays the basis for any such thing as this? A. No,
sir. '

Q. Mr. Pioch, why, or at whose suggestion did you
use the particular drawings or blueprints, Exhibits 254
and 255, on which you show this horse-race machine?
(1227) A. This is not a machine. This is an attachment.
: Q. Well, attachment? <A. Yes, sir. Whose sugges-

ion

Q. Why do you show it on this particular drawing?
A. This is the first sketch and we made it on this drawing
to eliminate the time necessary to make such a drawing.

vai

—

William F. Pioch, Cross Examination 687

Q. Do you know when the old Ford shapers first went
into use? A. Yes.

Q. What year? A. 1913,

Q. What is the date of this drawing? You are sure it
was 1913? It was not 1914? A. Well, if I ean look in my
notes I can tell you exactly.

Q. Allright. I wish you would do that. A. The first
cam shaper went on production on October 28, 1915, not
1913 or 1914, but 19154

Q. 1915? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is the date of this drawing, Exhibit 254, also
Exhibit 255? A. Exhibit 254 is 11-17-1913, and Exhibit
255 is dated 11, looks like 17-1913.

Q. The same date? A. The same date.

Q. And both of them are marked obsolete, aren’t they?
A. Correct.

Q. What does that mean? A. That means it has been
put out of use.

(1228) Q. Means the attachment has heen? A. The
machine,

Q. It doesn’t mean the drawings are obsolete? A.
The drawings are put out of use also.

Q. Do you know when these particular drawings he-
came obsolete? A. I believe our tool card will show that
date. I can get that off the record. No, I mean the Z num-
ber card, The 18-Z-3 card would show the date,

Q. When these drawings were obsoleted? A. Yes,
sir.

Q. Have you got that record here? A. I don’t be-
lieve I have. I can produce it. Will you make a note of
that, Mr. Farley? I want the 18-Z ecard,

Mr. Farley: 18-Z-3 card, isn’t it?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Michael: Maybe I ean clear that up.

Q. These are copies? A. I don’t have a note of it
here.

Q. These are copies of two Ford drawings placed in
evidence at the trial before Judge Tuttle? A, Evidently.

Q. One is marked Exhibit 62 and the other is marked
Exhibit 63. Now, will that help you in connection with
this matter? A. No.

688 William F. Pioch, Cross Examination

Q. Aren’t those drawings of the Ford shaper? A.
Yes, sir.

Q. And what are the dates of those drawings? A.
This one marked Exhibit 63 is dated 4-26-1915.

(1229) Q. What is the date? A. 4-26-1915.

Q. Yes. And what is the date of the other, Exhibit
62? A. 5-18-1915.

Q. What does that mean to you, if anything, those
dates on drawings Exhibit 62 and Exhibit 63, with refer-
ence to the dates on these two drawings, Exhibits 255 and
254? A. That means there had been another drawing
made after this. These exhibits are not exact duplicates
of the ones dated 11-17-1913.

Q. No. But they are similar views of the machine,
aren’t they? A. That is all.

Q. Corresponding views? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the fact there was this later set of drawings
would indicate that these earlier drawings, Exhibits 255
and 254, were at least on the date of the new drawings obso-
leted? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And replaced by these new drawings, Exhibits 62
and 631 A. That is correct. That is general procedure in
the department; nothing unusual about that.

Q. Well, if you will notice or compare roughly these
corresponding drawings, you will note a number of changes
in them, will you not? A. Yes, sir. That is possible.

Q. So that the changes no doubt occasioned the new set
of drawings? A. That is right.

Q. And this new set of drawings comprises a total of
140 sheets, isn’t that right? (1230) A. That is correct. I
can’t see the number of sheets on here. Oh, here. This
will probably explain. That is 18-Z-3, dated 11-17-1913.

Q. That is Exhibits 254 and 2551 A. Yes, sir; Ex-
hibits 254 and 255 show a total of some 58, we will call it
58 sheets. Then 18-Z-3 dated 4-26-1915, Exhibit 63 and
Exhibit 62, dated 5-18-1915, show a total number of sheets
of 140.

Q. Now, you have said, have you not, that the first
shaper went into use in 19157 A. That is correct.

Q. From which set of drawings was that shaper made?
A. I believe from both. I don’t remember.

The Master: Where the two drawings are differ-
ent and where you have provision for differences in

William F. Pioch, Cross Examination 689

one, the shaper has to be designed from one or the
other. It can’t be made from both.

A. It can be made from both. That has happened,
You see, your Honor, very likely here is what happened.
When this design was started, it was started with these Ex-
hibits 254 and 255 and after it was completed in the draw-
ing room, the tool room started to build this machine, and
as they went along the machine was probably 75 percent
completed and new ideas were put into effect, additions
made and new drawings made, representing the Exhibits
63 and 62.

The Master: Well, the machine as actually con-
structed would be more likely to follow exhibits—

A. The finished machine would follow the Exhibits 62
and 63.

\

‘ (1231) Mr. Farley: I wonder if I might at this
time call the attention of the Court to Exhibit 246-A,
which shows a permanent inventory card for the first
shaper. Are you familiar with those?

A. Yes, I have seen them.

Mr. Farley: I wonder if I might he permitted to
show the card to the witness?

Mr. Michael: Yes.

Mr. Farley: Does that show the date when the
machine first went into use?

A. B-X-3, that is our production department. That
shows the date October 26, 1914.

Mr. Farley: From what record did you make that

note of 1915, of the machines first going into use? Did
) you consult the permanent inventory record?

A. No, I didn’t.

Mr. Farley: What have you got to say now as
to the date when the machine was first put into use?
A. I believe I got the date off this card here.

The Master: This is Exhibit 2481?

A. 248.7,

690 William F. Pioch, Cross Examination

The Master: Which is a list that was presented
by Mr. Herklotz showing the date that the various cam
shapers were acquired ?

A. 10-28-1915. That corresponds with my note.
Q. Where did you get your note, Mr. Pioch? A. I
don’t remember. Very likely from this exhibit here.

The Master: Exhibit 248?

(1232) A. Exhibit 248.

Mr. Farley: That list is subject to correction if
error should appear.

The Master: That is true. It apparently is not
correct in this respect.) ,

Q. (By Mr. Michael): Getting back to these draw-
ings, Mr. Pioch, wouldn’t it be true that anything that was
used and is shown in the earlier drawings, Exhibits 254 and
255, would have been carried forward into the second set of
drawings? A. That is right.

Q. So that any machine constructed after this date,
5-18-1915, would have been made in accordance with the
drawings, Exhibits 62 and 63? A. That is right.

The Master: How many steady rests are shown on
the drawings, Exhibits 62 and 63?

A. Exhibits 62 and 63? It shows one.

Q. And Exhibits 254 and 255 show how many? A.
Three.

Q. Are you sure that the tools were stationary in the
shaper as used in the Ford plant, I mean stationary length-
wise in the machine? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You are positive? A. They moved in a vertical
position. They were not stationary.

Q. The work was under the tools? A. Correct.

Q. The tools did not move across the work? (1233)
A. No, sir.

Q. Do you know Mr. Kindall? Did you know him?
A. I had a Kendall working for me.

Q. E. W. Kindall? A. I don’t remember his initials.

Q. K-i-n-d-a-l-l? A. Oh, no. I know Kendall,
K-e-n-d-a-l-l.

Q. Do you know Mr. Oberhoffken? A. Yes, sir.

William F. Pioch, Cross Examination 691

Q. Who was he? A. He was a foreman in the draft-
ing room. He was a draftsman, first, like myself, and then
he became a foreman.

Q. Did he have anything to do with the design of the
shaper? A. I believe he did. He directed the designing
of it. The man that designed this machine was a man by
the name of Olaf Anderson. He designed the machine.

Mr. Farley: He made the drawings?

A. He made the design and some of the drawings.
Mr. Farley: Under Oberhoffen’s direction?

A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farley: Is Anderson alive?

A. He is dead. Sorry. I might state that he was a
very brilliant designer.

Q. (By Mr. Michael): Mr. Anderson? <A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, at the trial before Judge Tuttle, the defend-
ant introduced in evidence an exhibit marked 61, which
was in the form of an affidavit attached to these two draw-
ings? A. Yes.

(1234) Q. Exhibits 62 and 63. And I show you a
copy of that affidavit and will ask you if vou disagree
with the substance of it. It was signed, I think, in 1920?
A. Do these letters on here refer to these.

Q. The letters show on these prints, on Exhibits 62
and 63. Here is one here. They are put in very light. Here
is D. B. Here is G and here is H. Don’t you see it there?
A. No.

The Master: What are you looking for?

A. Letter G and letter H.

Q. See the H there and the light line going down?
Here is the G-here. Mr. Farley, have you the originals of
these?

Mr. Farley: I think they are over in the office.

The Master: I think it is a G and H, with a fine
line. It is very dim.

Mr. Michael: They are Mr. Farley’s exhibits.
These are just copies. The lettering would show up
decidedly on the originals.

re nt ene ee oe

William F. Pioch, Cross Examination

Mr. Farley: I have got all the original exhibits
over in the office. We will produce those.
The Master: It is very certain that there is an H.

A. Some’ kind of letter there.

The Master: It is H. I have a very good pair of
eyes.

A. We will assume that is G and H there. I see B
here.

Q. Yes. A. I see C. That is right. Okay. Well,
we will assume that is G and H. That certainly is a con-
fusing description of this.

Q. Well, do you want to make changes in it? A. No,
I can’t make any changes in that. To me, the description
(1235) of the operation of that machine is confusing. It
couldn’t work that way.

Mr. Spohn: You refer to Exhibit 61.

A. Exhibit 61. What I think he meant here when he
says it is a cutter to move from left to right, he should
have added, ‘‘ Across the work piece.’’ They did not move.
I imagine he meant the cutters did the work from left to
right.

The Master: Relatively, I suppose?

A. Yes. That is a poor description of the operation
of the machine. I don’t know who this Kindall is.

Q. Would your records show whether he was ever in
your department? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Will you look at your records, Mr. Pioch, and tell
us who I. W. Kindall was, if your records show anything
about it? A. Yes. .

Q. Can you identify that photograph, Exhibit 52?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is it? A. It is a cam shaft shaper.

Q. Well, now, photograph Exhibit 52 you said shows
a Ford cam shaper? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And how many steady rests do you see in that
machine? A. One.

Q. Can you tell by looking at these drawings, Exhibits
62 and 63, how long they remained current? A. No, sir.

Q. Well, suppose you find on these drawings, Exhibits
62 and 63, (1236) dates of changes as recent as 1919, would

William F. Pioch, Cross Examination 693

you say that the drawings were still in effect at that time?
A. Yes, sir. Evidently that shows there were some addi-
tions or changes made. It says on here the record shows
under the column marked changes re-drawn by W. S. 5-22-
1919. The next record under this column shows details
196 and 197 added by W. S. 7-8-1919. The next record
under the change column shows sheet numbers of pat-
tern QQQ corrected by W. B. dated 8-9-1919, and I might
state if this shaper was still on production that you would
find changes on our drawings marked as late as last week.

Q. So these notations you have just read from Ex-
hibit 62 indicate under your practice in your department
that these drawings were still in effect in 1919? A. That
is correct.

Q. Do you recognize this photograph I show you,
Exhibit 53? <A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is it? A. That is a Ford cam shaper.

Q. Does it look like the same machine as shown in
the other photograph, Exhibit 52, or can you tell if they
are two different photographs of the same machine, or
are they different machines? A. It might be different.

Q. Well, I wish you would compare them and express
an opinion on it. A. They look very similar.

Q. Do you think they might be the same machine?
A. They might be. Of course, there was more than one
machine built, so this might be the same machine and might
not.

(1237) Q. How many steady rests do you find in Ex-
hibit 637 A. So far as I can see only one.

Q. And you only find one in Exhibit 52? A. That
is right.

Q. Is this the brass tag here on the front of the mas-
ter cam housing? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Same on each machine? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you suppose a magnifying glass would bring
out the number? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You don’t happen to have one here? A. I am
sorry, I left mine home.

The Master: This is 7069 and this is 7836, so
they are different machines. 7089.

Mr. Spohn: Mr. Watts ought to make a state-
ment on that. He looked at them last night.

———————

nod William F. Pioch, Cross Examination

Mr. Watts: I checked them up with a magnify-
ing glass and they are both 7089.

A. Both the same?
Mr. Watts: Same brass tag number.

A. They must be the same machine then.

Mr. Michael: 7089.

The Master: It is pretty clear.

Mr. Michael: You can make that out?

The Master: Yes. I can.

Mr. Spohn: On Exhibit 248 it shows a brass tag
number of 7089.

A. That would very likely verify it.
(1238) The Master: Yes.

Q. You mean as the first cam shaper put into use?
A. Yes, sir; so that must be the one and same machine.

Q. Can you explain to me now why you selected these
obsolete drawings for the building of your attachment as
distinguished from these drawings, Exhibits 63 and 62?
A. No. The only reason is that these obsolete drawings
that I have here as Exhibits 254 and 255 were in our files,
and Exhibits 62 and 63, the originals, must have been with
Mr. Farley.

Mr. Farley: I think I can explain that. You have
no objection, have you, Mr. Michael?

Mr. Michael: I have no objection.

Mr. Farley: We procured and we still have it over
in the office, a small, brown manilla folder which ap-
parently was kept in some department that had to
do with new machines or inventions, or something of
that kind, and it had this typewritten statement of
Kindall’s, and blueprints frem which these photo-
stats were made. I don’t know whether you have
prints of these in your files or not.

A. I was surprised to see that.

Mr. Farley: I was surprised that you had other
drawings different from those.

Mr. Michael: Well, the witness says you had
drawings, Mr. Farley.

——_——

William F. Pioch, Cross Examination 695

Mr. Farley: We had these drawings, Exhibits 62
and 63, but I did not have the drawings, Exhibits
254 and 255. They came from his department some-
where.

(1239) A. This was added on here.

Mr. Michael: Your Honor, this Exhibit 61, this
| certificate signed by Mr. Kindall was merely identified
below before Judge Tuttle. We have talked about it
here, and I am merely asking that it be preserved in
that condition until we hear from Mr. Farley as to
who Mr. Kindall was, and then I may want to offer it.

The Master: All right.

Mr. Farley: I have no objection.
| Mr. Michael: I offer it now under the same ex-
hibit designation as was used below.

The Master: Do you recognize that form of docu-
ment as being the regular type or form you have at the
Ford Motor Company?

A. No, sir.

The Master: Well, I will admit the exhibit in evi-
dence.

Mr. Farley: I will state, if your Honor please, that
is a record which I procured and which I have every
reason to believe was a regular record of the company,
probably some sort of record made by someone who
might have been handling patent affairs for the com-
pany at that time, in May, 1920. I rather imagine that
was in Jack Harness’ time. I don’t know.

The Master: Can you tell from these exhibits in
evidence, 62 and 63 and 254 and 255, whether or not
according to those drawings, the movement of the tool
is merely vertical, or was it longitudinal?

A. Yes.

The Master: And you find from those that it is not
longitudinal?

(1240) A. That is correct.

Q. (By Mr. Michael): Well, let me ask you this, Mr.
Pioch: If Mr. Kindall ever was in your department or
connected in any way with this shaper machine and made
this affidavit in May of 1920 and attached these drawings,

696 William F. Pioch, Cross Examination

Exhibits 62 and 63, would you say that those drawings were
still current at that time? A. I believe so.

The Master: I think that is a double-barreled
question.

A. If he had been in the department, your Honor.

Q. (By Mr. Michael): Let me clear it up this way:
From your own personal knowledge, Mr. Pioch, were draw-
ings, Exhibits 62 and 63, still current at the time you
stopped using the shapers? A. Yes, sir.

The Master: Mr. Pioch, you said you didn’t make
any attempt to particularly keep in touch with the
organization of the department similar to yours among
your competitors, or other companies which are not
competitors?

A. Yes.

The Master: Do you or your department make an
effort to keep in touch with the kinds of machines that
are being put out to perform different types of work
that is done at the Ford Motor Company and also in
other companies?

A. Yes, sir.

The Master: You have men who go around in-
specting machines?

A. No, we do not. It is not worked that way, your
Honor. The method is that the machinery salesmen come
and present their new ideas.

(1241) The Master: Suppose there is a machine in
a plant which is designed as the cam shaper was by
men in the plant itself, and is not on sale, and yet is a
very superior type of machine to any other type that is
performing the particular work, would that ever come
to your attention?

A. You mean if that machine was in another place?

The Master: If it is in another plant that is a
manufacturing establishment, and if the company is
not interested in selling the machine to anyone else,
but simply having it for their own purpose in pro-
duction, do you make any attempt to ferret out infor-
mation about such machines?

_-_-

William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination 697

A. No, sir. We would have to go to this place and
look over their equipment to find out whether they had
new methods, but if the method was known and called to
our attention, then we would try to improve our machinery,
that is, operations to increase their efficiency.

The Master: Do you know whether engineers
from other plants who are competitors or non-com-
petitors frequently visit the Ford Motor Company to
inspect their machines?

A. They do, but they come to see our operations
through a request and we show them, and that also hap-
pens if we hear of a certain particular improved machine,
say, for instance, General Motors or Chrysler’s, why then
we go over there and look at their machines.

The Master: Do you know whether there were
ever any requests with respect to the Ford cam shaper
by competitors asking about its design and function?

A. No, I don’t.

(1242) The Master: You don’t know whether any
other company ever made a request?
A. No.

The Master: To make a Ford cam shaper?

A. No.

The Master: Ora machine similar to that for their
own purposes?

A. No, sir.

Re-Drirect Examination by Mr. Farley.

Q. I don’t think this is of very great importance, but

when you talked about the way in which you selected your

| foreman, I was wondering which was the most important

| factor which would prompt you to select, let us say, Mr.

| McCoskey or Mr. Boesen as foreman in your department,

his ability as a draftsman or his ability to handle men,
executive ability? A. I would say that is 50-50.

Q. Now, in connection with various interesting ma-

chines that you were questioned about which you had devel-

698 William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination

oped, I was wondering about a certain machine which we
saw there at the plant, the machine for testing the cam
shafts, where the shafts go in on a conveyor and at the end
of the machine they are automatically passed or rejected;
is that a machine developed in your department? A. Yes,
sir; under my supervision. Along with those inspection
machines we developed a machine for a push rod and a
machine for (1243) the valve inserts, that is, to check the
valve inserts.

Q. That push rod machine is another machine that is
over there in the cam shaft department in a glass case, I
think? A. No, the push rod machine is over in the foundry.

Q. I mean to say the wrist pin? A. The push rod ma-
chine is in the foundry building.

Q. But the wrist pin is in the motor building right
alongside of the glass room where they have the cam shaft
testing? A. Yes, sir.

Q. There is one thing that I didn’t ask you on direct
examination that escaped my attention at the time, and
that is the general proposition as to whether or not as a part
of the functioning of your department and in connection
with Sheldrick’s department, who designs the car, does the
question ever arise of Sheldrick’s department designing
something that you would consider when the details came
in, and you would find that there might be some difficulties
in machining the part from the standpoint of production
difficulties? A. Well, that happens. We consult Mr. Shel-
drick and work with him and have him so design these par-
ticular parts to eliminate those objections.

Q. Does that happen very often? A. Very often.

Q. Is it a matter of every-day occurrence? A. Well,
every week, I will say that comes up.

Q. Do you happen to know why the Model A shaft has
larger bearings than the Model T shaft? Do you know what
Imean? A. Yes. Why it was designed that way?

(1244) Q. Yes, or the reason for that difference in de-
sign? A. Well, it eliminates the extra loose bearing like
on the Model T.

Q. In the Model T, the bearings were constructed with
what we call a split bearing? A. Yes.

Q. When you put this Model T shaft in the tool Ex-
hibit 34, you put the three bearing parts down into a re-

William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination 699

cessed part something like a steady rest you drew of the
eam shaft? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then you had another bearing crank that went
over the top and completed the bearing? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, whereas in the Model A, the bearings are—
A. (Interposing): Integral with the shaft.

Q. Now, does that in any way change the function or
operation of the shaft in the motor? A. No, it does not.

Q. And can you state why the bearings on the Model A
shaft are made as large as they are, or let me put the ques-
tion this way: Is there any particular relationship between
the size of the bearings and the size of the cams on the
Model A shaft, or any reason for that relationship? A.
Well, the bearings for one reason, as I see they have this
size, is that the hearing diameter reaches beyond the point
of this cam.

Q. That is, the throw of the cam? A. And that is
made so as to make the assembly possible.

Q. Make the assembly possible, and by that you mean
the insertion of (1245) the Model A shaft into the motor?
A. That is right.

Q. You understand the idea being that if the bearings
are made slightly larger than the distance of the nose of
the cam from the center of the shaft that you can then insert
the shaft endwise into the motor, using solid bearings in-
stead of the loose bearings? A. Split bearings.

Q. That you used on the Model T? A. Yes.

The Master: Does it make any difference in the
efficiency of the operation of the motor as to whether
you have large bearings of the type of Model A?

A. I don’t believe so. The Model T was not as heavy
a motor as the Model A. The horse-power rating shows
that and of course this had to be rigid. You can compare
the two diameters and see that these are larger in the Model
T in the cams themselves and shafts themselves.

Q. Is it your testimony that the chief, if not sole rea-
son, for making the bearings larger on the Model A is not
because of any requirements of the motor itself, or the
smooth functioning of the motor, but rather because it is
simpler? A. Simpler to assemble.

Q. Assembly and production of the machine? <A. I
will say it is both of those reasons.

ne

700 William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination

The Master: In what respect does it improve the
operation of the motor?

A. On account of the fact the bearing pressures were
greater on (1246) the Model A than they were on the
Model T and required larger bearings, the Model A cam
shaft with this size diameter bearing would never stand
up. It had to be larger than this. Therefore they made
the bearing large enough to go over the point of the cam
so that it would cover both reasons.

The Master: I see.

Q. If, for example, Mr. Pioch, the use of the shaper
had been, or the necessity for the use of the shaper, if
you had been confronted with that in 1927, when you came
out with Model A production, and let us assume that you
would have considered it impossible, or otherwise, to have
built a shaper such as you have shown with the attach-
ment, would it have been possible or feasible to have al-
tered the length of the bearings so as to give ample clear-
ance for the old type shaper to get in behind? A. Yes, it
would.

Q. And is that a sort of expedient or device that you
adopt around the plant? A. We would have had to take
the center bearing and one end bearing and made those
two bearings shorter by the distance enough to get a shaper
tool in front of the cam.

The Master: About how much shorter would that
be, roughly?

A. Those shaper tools were about, we could have made
about three-eighths of an inch. That would have made the
shaft—that would have made the bearing on the shaft three-
sixteenths shorter on the end, and—I will correct that,
three-sixteenths. I will say one-fourth of an inch on the
end bearing and one-fourth of an inch on the center bear-
ing. Then probably we would have made these bearing
diameters a little bit larger to make up for (1247) the loss
in bearing surface.

Q. Increased the diameter on them? A. Increased
the diameter.

The Master: If you increased the diameter you
. would have to cut away the bearing even further,

oe 4t)

William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination 701

because the tool is slanting upward for clearance, and
the higher the bearing, the further back you would
have to recess it?

A. To clear the tool, yes, sir.

The Master: That would have been more than
one-fourth of an inch if you increased the size of the
bearing?

A. It would be a quarter, approximately, one-fourth,
but I don’t know what the diameter of this is. Approxi-
mately one and one-haly inches.

Q. Have you made the computation? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what do you find? A. I find that if we
had done that, shortened the bearings one-fourth of an
inch, we would have increased the diameters from one and
one-half to one—1.714.

Q. And that would have been an increase of 20/100ths
of the diameter, and insofar as the inclination of the shaper
tool itself, in fact I don’t think it would have any effect?
A. You would have to cut—

Q. 10/100ths? A. That is right.

Q. Less than 1/10 of an inch? A. That is right.

Mr. Michael: For instance, if your tool, your
shaper tool (1248) was out here like this, and sup-
ported by the tool holder at this point, then what?

A. We would have had to cut that support back 1/10th
of an inch.

Q. I don’t think the Court understood how the shaper
would work under these conditions. It would mean you
would provide yourself about, approximately a half inch
clearance between the edge and the cam? A. Approxi-
mately half an inch.

Q. That would be enough to clear the tool entirely?
A. Yes. You see, you would have one cam here and this
would be the bearing, and that would be, say, the tool
support for the increase in diameter, and this would be the
tool backing after the increase in diameter.

Q. And suppose you had been confronted with the
problem and decided to solve it by a slight change in design
of the cam shaft, would that have required any more time
or knowledge or effort on your part than in making the com-
putations which you now just made? A. No, sir.

702 William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination

The Master: Is there any necessity or desirability
for the center bearing to be exactly in the center be-
tween the end bearings of the cam shaft?

A. No, sir.

The Master: If you eut part of the center bear-
ing off, that would throw it a little off center?

A. Yes, it would.

Q. But that wouldn’t be of any serious consequence?
A. Oh, no.

Q. Wouldn’t affect the operation of the motor? (1249)
A. No.

Q. Now, let me ask you this, Mr. Pioch: You were
in charge of the department when the change was made
from Model T to Model A? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, during that period do you recall the fact that
Model T production was stopped entirely in May, 1927?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And during that period from May, 1927 to Decem-
ber, 1927, was all a period of development of Model A? A.
That is right.

Q. And in connection with that particular develop-
ment your department had a great deal of work to do, did
it not? A. It certainly did.

Q. You had a great many machines to modify? A.
Yes, sir.

Q. Or re-design? A. Re-design, build new, change.

Q. Build new machines. Now, do you recall whether
or not in that period of 7 months or more, there was any
occasion at all that you can recall where the very thing
we have now been discussing, that is, an alteration of some
part or design of the car arose, or whether there were any
questions of that type that arose, and for production rea-
sons the design was modified in any respect whatsoever.
Were there many or any of those? A. Yes, I can name
you one in that period, and that was the valve bushing.
That was a chilled cast bearing, and we changed that to a
soft cast iron, eliminating the grinding operation.

Q. And were there other instances in that connection
that you don’t (1250) now specifically recall? A. Why,
if I had time to think, I might name some more.

Q. Now, let me ask you this question: Suppose you
had been confronted with the problem in 1927, when you

William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination 703

changed over to Model T—to Model A, and the proposition
had been before you and your production department, that
you must either use the old Landis grinders for the produe-
tion of the millions of the Model A shafts that were to
come, or to make a change in the design such as you have
just discussed of the cam shaft, what would you have done?
A. In that case we would have had to change the cam

you would have gone to the Landis grinders instead of
changing the cam shaft? A. I don’t believe so, no, sir.
Q. The Master asked you some questions concerning
changes in the standards of production on the Model T
about 1924. Model T production started when? A. In
1928, 1 believe
Q. Model '?, the old Model T? A. Model T produc-
tion started, I beiieve, in 1909.
Q. 1909 or 1910? A. Somewhere in there.
| Q. That continued for 17 years, did it not? A. Until
| 1927.
| Q. And approximately 15 million Model T’s were built
| during that period? A. Correct.

Q. Now, are you in a position to know whether there
was any (1251) particular change, as far as standardiza-
tion was concerned, during all of those years of Model T
production? A. Why, there were a lot of improvements
made froin the time we started until the time they stopped
the job.

Q. Wasn’t there any change that you were aware of
insofar as machining tolerances, generally speaking,
throughout the Model T production, such as occurred when
you made the shift from Model T to Model A? A. The
limits of the parts were made smaller when we went into
Model A production from what we had on the Model T.
That means we had higher standards of quality of work
on the Model A production.

Q. During the period of Model T production from 1909
to 1927, were there changes being made in tolerances and
standards required for the various parts that went into
the automobile?’ A. There were changes made in toler-
ances during the Model T production, but when we went
to the Model A production, the tolerances were more

|
|
shaft.
Q. And do you think there was any possibility that

a

704 Wiltem PF. Picch, Re-Direct Examination

notably cut down than they were during the time of the
Model T production.

Q. You made a more radical change when you went
to the Model Af A. Corteet.

Q. But still you were making changes and improve-
ments! A. Yeu, om the Model T.

Q. Do you have any particular system at the Ford
Company to show or to keep track of changes in any of the
parts from the beginning to the end of its production? A.
Yes, we have a system for that, and we also have another
system for the record on the tools.

(1252) Q. Are these the records that I asked you
to produce on that particular subject? A. Those are the
tool records.

Q. Tools and miscellaneous. These are different rec-
ords than the engineering information? A. Yes, sir.

Q. These records you have now would not show any
changes insofar as tolerances and things of that kind are
concerned? <A. No, sir.

Q. But engineering information would give that? A.
That is correct.

Q. Do you know whether the engineering informa-
tion cards for the T-410 cam shafis are available? A. I
believe so, yes, sir. I say that because I looked up a record
for Mr. P. E. Martin on the fly whee! dowel pin.

Q. It doesn't make any difference. A. I will get it.
No, it was not the dowel pin. It was the triple gear pin
that was pressed in the Model T fly wheel, and he requested
the Highland Perk reeord man—and I requested the High-
land Park record man to bring out the complete engineering
record of this perticalar part, and he produced the record
from the time that the part started.

Q. I know I asked someone over the telephone to bring
down the enginevring information for the T-410 cam shaft,
because I anticipated this subject might arise. I think
it was you, and [ think you have produced these instead
of the engineering information, do you remember? A.
You asked me for those cards.

(1253) Q. It was the engineering information I
wanted. Is there anything about these particular cards
which we have and which are called drawing index that
would enable you by consulting them to see whether there
had been any change in the standards, production stand-

William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination 705

ards? <A. I don’t believe these card records would show
that, but the drawings would show that, the engineering
drawings.

Q. And engineering information? <A. Yes, sir.

Q. I think we will probably have to try to produce

those? A. All right.
‘f Q. Now, you stated on cross examination, as I recall
your exact words, it was something to the effect, or it was
that with your present knowledge and experience you bhe-
lieved you could now at the present time design and build
a cam shaft shaper that would be faster than the Pioch
machine and the Westinghouse and the Walcott, or any of
them? <A. I believe that could be done now.

Q. Just what did you mean by your present knowledge
and information? What did you have in mind so far as the
knowledge was concerned? Was it knowledge of this law
suit or knowledge of those machines that you had learned
about in recent years or what? A. The experience that
we have had in the past years. “2

Q. I am going, in view of the other cross examination
and discussion of the two wooden models we have here, I
am going to hand you a letter signed by you and addressed
to me, dated November 2nd, 1938. Will you please state
what that is and (1254) the reason for it, or why you wrote
it? A. That is a comparison of the—if we had used the
eam shaft shaper on the Model A and the Model T. It shows
the time, the actual cutting time for the Model T shaft as
being 25.3 seconds, and the Model A cam shaft actual cut-
ting time of 29 seconds.

Q. Now, that is a computation by you prepared at my
request? A. That is correct, that is.

Q. And in that computation you took the information
available on these drawings and were able, by taking that,
to figure out exactly the speeds of the machine? A. Yes,
sir.

Mr. Farley: I will ask that this be marked Ex-
hibit 264.

(Letter above referred to was marked Exhibit
264.)

* & * * *

(1255) Mr. Farley: I didn’t understand, Mr.
Michael, whether you wanted me to produce the

a ROMAINE NGO AMAL DIOS ESN TEGO

706

William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination

original of that typed sheet, of which you have a
photostatic ecpy. I think it is Exhibit 62.

Mr. Spohn: 62 and 63.

The Witness: Yes.

The Master: Excuse me a second.

Mr. Farley: Yes, sir.

(There was a short interruption. )

The Master: All right.

Mr. Michael: Well, I think it would be in order,
Mr. Farley, if you produced here just until the time
may come all exhibits that are not reproduced in the
record.

Mr. Farley: Yes. That particular slip of paper I
had Mr. Green looking for, he couldn’t locate that dur-
ing the lunch hour. I found the envelope in which that
typed description and the originals of Exhibit 62 of
those two drawings are the same number.

(1256) Mr. Spohn: 62 and 63?

Mr. Farley: 62 and 63.

Mr. Spohn: Yes.

Mr. Farley: And the system in connection with
these as far as their coming into my possession, that
when the case started, or shortly before, rather, the
trial of the case before Judge Tuttle, I asked them to
produce the drawings of the cam shaft shaper, and this
yellow envelope that I have in my hand was produced,
and it contained the drawings which I have here that
are in it. Some of them were not introduced. We
selected two of the drawings, they were assembly views
to be put in evidence.

Mr. Michael: And they are 61 and 62.

Mr. Spohn: 62 and 63.

Mr. Michael: Or 62 and 68, yes.

Mr. Farley: My knowledge of these particular ex-
hibits is that I was told that was produced in some file
that the Ford Company had, which was, more or less,
a record of inventions, and, apparently, these par-
ticular drawings were put in this envelope at the time
the record was prepared in May of 1920.

The Witness: There are some more sheets here.

Mr. Farley: Yes, I know. And, I think, then, with
that explanation, suppose we mark the envelope?

‘ SEP RAIS ew PietecRS 7 eb ae Agee p :
PRE OE AILERON GEISER ERTS BES, SAE ATER LE LORETEELLLYAIE ELTA ELT OI PPAR IIS

William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination 707

The Witness: There it is right on there (indicat-

ing).
Mr. Farley: Yes.

(Short discussion off the record.)

Mr. Farley: Supposing we mark this Exhibit 260
—TI haven’t got the last exhibit number—I think it is
263 or *4.
(1257) A Voice: 265.
Mr. Farley: It is 265. Envelope in which Ex-
‘hibits 62 and 63 and 61 were made, or were filed and
received by Mr. Farley.
I might state, too, that the prints here have the
reporter’s stamp placed on it.
The Master: Yes.
Mr. Farley (Continuing): Exhibits during the
trial before Judge Tuttle.
The Master: Yes.

Re-Direct Examination (Continued) by Mr. Farley.

Q. Now, referring to Exhibit 264, I notice that that
says: ‘‘As per your request, we are giving below data of
speeds and feeds for the cam shaft shaper based on in-
formation from you of 700 revolutions per minute for
drive pulley,’’ and, in that connection, I call your attention
to Exhibit 62—63, and direct your attention to the inscrip-
tions, ‘700 revolutions per minute’’ on the flywheel to
which the arrow part, 115, is directed— A. (Interrupt-
ing): No. The part number is this (indicating). That is
the sheet number (indicating).

Q. This is the sheet number (indicating)? A. Yes,
sir.

Q. All right. The part number would be 6-Z-96-LL?
A. Yes.

Q. Now, were you able to make these computations
from the information given in these drawings based on the
premise that the (1258) pulley which we have just
referred to and the shaft to which the pulley is attached
rotated at 700 revolutions per minute? A. Yes, we would.
We would. Those figures are based on that condition.

Q. Yes. A. (Continuing): As shown on this draw-
ing.

_—a Sar tae ET eae MOREE aT RRA Rte tua a ee eee Cn % , tiger Anas went Ty. ,
° es a a CC BD ee a Si a Se or a ie

708 William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination

Q. Yes. Now, based on the premise then that your
main driving shaft which is the one we have been talking
about, runs at 700 R.P.M., and having a driven gear with a
13-inch pitch diameter, and a driving gear with a 4¥;; pitch
diameter, you determined the speed of the crank by the
computation shown in this Exhibit 264 as being 220? A.
220.

Q. Revolutions per minute? A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. Now, the crank to which we are referring is the
shaft ‘‘S,’? which was marked on these wooden models, is
that right? A. That is correct.

Q. And then for the next— A. (Interrupting): This
also—pardon me?

Mr. Farley: Yes.
The Master: Go ahead.

A. Can I talk?

The Master: Yes.
Mr. Farley: Yes.

A. This also bears out the fact that the tools did not
slide, but the work piece slid.

Q. Oscillated? (1259) A. Oscillated back and forth.

Q. Or ‘‘reciprocated’’ would be the term? A. Yes.

Mr. Michael: By ‘‘this,’’ you mean the letter
dated November 2, 1938?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): Now, then, in the
next tabulation you have taken the circumference of the
model T cam which you give as approximately 2.9 inches.
A. Around that.

Q. 2.9 inches? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then you divided, you got from the first set of
computations the feed per stroke of 1/32, that is, 1/32 of
aninech? A. That represents the amount cut.

Q. Feed? A. That is the feed.

Q. That is the feed? A. Yes.

Q. Yes. That is the width of the slice of steel that the
tool would take off as it made each stroke? A. Each
stroke, yes.

Q. And, then, dividing 1/32 of an inch feed per stroke
into 2.9 inch, you have reached the answer of 92.8, and

SED USAT STS hk a EVOL RE ERA, BILE IG LE LH RGM ORR NME OER US ER IR OSE af faced

William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination 709

which you take, then, as 93 strokes for the total rotation of
the crank? <A. Yes, correct.

Q. Then, you divide the total time, 16 minutes, divided
by, or, rather, the time is 92.8 divided by 220, and you got
25? (1260) A. That is the number of strokes.

Q. Yes. A. (Continuing): Times 60, divided by the
strokes per minute.

Q. Yes. And that gave you 25.3 seconds for the time
for the eam shaft to make one complete revolution in cutting
the model T cam? A. That is the cutting time, 25.3 sec-
onds.

Q. Now, if the machine made two complete rotations,
this time would have to be doubled? A. Doubled, yes.

Q. That would then give 50— A. (Interrupting):
50.6.

Q. 50.67 A. Yes.

Q. The latter being marked in lead pencil upon the
Exhibit 264? A. Correct.

Q. And you followed the same process for the Model
A shaft of finding the approximate perimeter of the shaft,
and divided it by the 1/32 feed, and you get a total cutting
time on that for one rotation of the cam, 29 seconds? A.
Correct.

Q. And multiplying that by 2, assuming that the cam
made two complete revolutions before the machine was
stopped and shaft taken out; that gives 58 seconds, is that
right? A. Correct.

Q. Now, then, this last one, surface speed of tool, you
have taken again your computation which you have ar-
rived at, of 220 strokes per minute? A. That is right, cor-
rect.

(1261) Q. And the cutting stroke would take 240 de.
grees of rotation of the shaft? A. Of the shaft that drives
the arm.

Q. And the return stroke? A. 120.

Q. 120? A. Yes.

Q. Perhaps I will let you describe that. I understand
that. But I would rather let you testify to that. A. We
are calculating the speed of the tool. We take, as we have
found, 220 strokes per minute of the slide necessary to fin-
ish one revolution, and we calculate the cutting stroke of
240 degrees and the return stroke, 120 degrees of revolu-

— : EE SR RALE TRE IIe TR IT NE EIS TES

oi oaths Che we AST mania aie oe hia

710 William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination

tion—that is the number of degrees that the driving gear
takes that drives the arm which drives the work slide—
now, the distance of the stroke of the cutting tool is 144
inches; therefore, with these conditions we get a surface
speed of the tool of 34 feet per minute, which—

Q. (By Mr. Farley, interposing): Now, if you give—
go ahead. A. (Continuing): —which is very conserva-
tive. It is low to what the speeds of the present day cut-
ting tools have.

Q. How about cutting speeds of tools in, let us say,
1924 and 1934. Would 34 feet per minute be too high a cut-
ting speed? A, No. That would be too low.

Q. Do you in your department have any particular
standard established for the shop for speed in cutting feet
per minute that should or should not be obtained by—or
should or should not be exceeded, let us say, by the various
types of tools? A. In 1934, or 1924?

(1262) Q. Well, generally. A. To the present day?

Q. Well, generally, do you have that sort of a system
in the department? Is your department the one who would
establish for the shop, the maximum cutting speed for any
particular type ci tool? A. Yes, sir.

Q. An, do you keep a record of that sort of thing?
A. No. we don’t.

4. Well, now, considering the best type of tool steel
available in 1924, let us say— A. (Interrupting): Yes.

Q. (Continuing): —do you have any present recol-
lection of what the maximum speed ordinarily was in feet
per minute? A. Our cutting speeds then were between
60 and 85 feet per minute.

The Master: With the kind of material that you
would be cutting?

A. Well, yes; that would vary around there. On a
piece of steel like this (indicating) of the cam shaft, I would
say, conservatively, 60 per feet per minute.

Q. (By Mr. Farley): How about present day? A.
Well, we have cutting tools now made of Tungsten Carbide
that have a cutting speed of four times that much.

Q. Now, I wonder, Mr. Pioch, you haven’t made any
particular check, I know, of these two sets of drawings of
the cam shafts between—

Be ree i

IAL CN AEG IESE NN LEI R TB NT E RE eA NI IEEE S ine

William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination 711

Mr. Spohn (Interposing): Pardon me, Mr. Farley,
before you get into that.

Mr. Farley: It is in reference to this.

(1263) Mr. Spohn: Oh, is it tied up with the case?

Mr. Farley: Yes.

Mr. Spohn: Oh, yes.

Mr. Farley: All right.

Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): With Exhibits 62
and 63—with Exhibits 254 and 255, in so far as any change
might have been made in the gears for the speed as com-
puted in this exhibit, 262—

Mr. Farley: Mark this, please, Exhibit 265, Mr.

Reporter.
(Thereupon, Exhibit No. 265 was marked by the
reporter.)

(Discussion off the record.)

A. Now, let me see the other sheet. Compare these
two (indicating)—I would say they are exactly the same.

Mr. Farley: I wonder if the Court understands
the computation of taking the 240 degrees and 120 de-
grees of revolution?

The Master: Not entirely.

Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): I wish you would
explain just what that is, and by referring to the drawing,
explaining how the drive operated. You understand my
question? A. Yes.

Q. Yes. A. Well, this hasn’t got any reference mark
here (indicating on blue-print).

Mr. Michael: Do you want him to refer to this
print or the other one?

Q. Let me first ask the question, Mr. Pioch. You are
now referring to Exhibit 254?

The Master: Exhibit 254 is the one he is refer-
ring to.

(1264) A. Yes.

Q. (By Mr. Farley): Well, let me first ask, have you
inspected these two drawings sufficiently? 254 is the same
type of a showing as Exhibit 62? A. That is right.

Q. That is right? A. Yes.

— f PBI SSS I PER IRENE it ETE LNT AE ER NRL OP EE LIT EIN BAIS

712 William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination

Q. Now, have you checked those drawings sufficiently
to see whether it would make any difference in the expla-
nation as to the mechanism for driving the carriage? A.
No, it wouldn’t.

Q. Do both of the drawings show the same mecha-
nism? <A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, I might, while I am on that, have you also
check the other parts of the machine shown on these two
drawings to see whether you see any change of any im-
portance that would modify the operation? A. Not the
operation, no, sir. There is a difference.

Mr. Spohn: Yes.

Q. Do you know what particular difference there is?
A. Well, the one shows the one steady rest, and the other
shows three. That is the only difference I see right now.

Q. All right. Now, if you will proceed with your ex-
planation? A. Yes. Well, I don’t know whether I would
be able to make myself clear on this drawing.

Q. Do you want to use the other one? A. No. It
is the same.

The Master: Now, could you explain it without
referring to the drawing?

(1265) Mr. Farley: Well, how about the wooden
model?

A. Well, the wooden model shows it exactly.

The Master: Well, let’s see the wooden model,
then.

A. Yes, sir.

We will refer to the wooden model marked Exhibit
237. And we will position the hand lever representing
the driving gear of the shaper, and we will position this
hand lever at the start of cut and mark same with pencil,
start of cut.

Q. (By Mr. Farley): Now, before you start that, Mr.
Pioch. A. Yes.

Q. The starting crank is on the shaft, that would be
the main driving shaft of that part of the machine? A.
Yes.

Q. That when that shaft makes one complete revolu-
tion the work carriage will have completed a cutting and
return stroke? <A. Correct.

William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination 713

Q. All right.
The Master: And that rotates counter-clockwise?

A. Yes. And this shaft rotates facing the machine
in a counter-clockwise rotation.

The Master: Yes.

A. We will turn this crank until it comes to the—
until the work slide comes to the end of its travel, and
mark thereon, a line, finish cut.

Q. You had a line marked on the front of the model,
the start of the cut? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And through how many degrees of rotation did you
rotate the shaft from the start cut to the finish cut posi-
tion? (1266) A. 240 degrees.

Q. All right. A. Then we will continue to rotate
this crank back (demonstrating). It is about there (indi-
cating) to the starting position.

Q. And during that continual rotation of the crank,
you have rotated through how many degrees? A. 120
degrees.

Q. I think that explains it. And just one question
there. And in those machines the shaft on which you have
the starting crank, rotated at uniform angular velocity,
is that right? A. Pardon?

Q. The crank which you are manipulating in the ac-
tual machines rotates at a constant speed? A. Yes, sir.

Q. At regular uniform angular velocity? <A. Cor-
rect.

Q. All right.

Mr. Farley: Now, I will offer Exhibit 264 in evi-
dence, and I will offer the brown envelope in which I
received Exhibits 62 and 63 in evidence as Exhibit
265. And I will offer as Exhibit 266, the computa-
tions made by Mr. Pioch in connection with the change
of the center bearing of the Model A shaft.

(1270) The Master: In making these computa-
tions for the model A, what kind of a shaper did
you have in mind, the style of shaper that is em-
bodied in the wooden exhibit that you had made?

a coy Soran
ALN NE IDS RA OM TATE AF

714

Colloquy of Master and Counsel

A. Yes, sir.

The Master: And would this be the machine time
of that type of shaper?

A. Yes, sir.

The Master: I think the exhibit is admissible.
I will admit it in evidence.

Mr. Spohn: Now, your Honor please, with re-
spect to Exhibit 266—do I understand that that ex-
hibit—is this it, Mr. Pioch?

A. Yes.

Mr. Spohn (Continuing): That that sets forth

the change of bearings necessary in that, that it had

something or other to use in shaping the model A?
(1271) Mr. Farley: Yes.

A. It is to use the shaper without putting the attach-

ment on.

Mr. Spohn: If your Honor please, I object to the
offer. It is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial,
all of the testimony on that offer with respect to what
modifications could have been made of model A cam
shafts. We are here dealing with a standard of com-
parison, profits, gains, and advantages. I assume that
they could have changed their course in many re-
spects. It is not what they might have done. The
question is what they did with the infringing ma-
chine.

The Master: Would you object to the machines
being used as a standard of comparison—well, to make
my question clearer, let us take an actual assump-
tion: Suppose that in the model A they had used the
same type of bearing as was used in the model T in-
stead of having an enlarged bearing, that the entire
shaft had been made of slightly larger diameter, and
slightly longer—all increases being the same propor-
tion—but the shape of the shaft being exactly the
same as with the model T. Now, before the cam shaper
eruld be used on the model A it would be necessary
to at least make the shapers somewhat larger.

Would you say that if that situation were pre-
sented it would be impossible to use the model T cam
shaper as a standard model of comparison?

PEELE Ne Ie ee eT LPL ELI RGN OE IY PONE I PIL, ELE BOM Ze .

Colloquy of Master and Counsel 715

Mr. Michael: You mean that if the model A
shaft would be the same as the T, except slightly
larger?

The Master: Yes.

(1272) Mr. Michael: I don’t think that would
make any difference.

The Master: It would be necessary to enlarge the
model T.

Mr. Michael: I understand not.

The Master: If the shaft were slightly longer,
why, you would have to change the position of the
tools. You would have to make your shaper of slightly
different dimensions.

Mr. Michael: Well, you would have to position
your tools over the shaft.

The Master: What I am wondering, to what ex-
tent you would take into consideration the modifica-
tions of a machine which would have been feasible and
simple to make if the defendant hadn’t been in a posi-
tion to avail himself of the infringing machine which
he actually used.

Mr. Michael: Well, the law is, as I understand, is
pretty strict of what you could do. However, it
wouldn’t go so far as to permit one instance—suppose
the Walcott machine was brought in as a standard.
Certainly my objection wouldn’t go so far as to pre-
vent the man from changing the master cam on that
machine, or re-positioning his tools to cut an identical
shaft. I don’t think that question is presented here at
all. Where a man comes in in 1939 and tells us what
he thinks he would have done in 1925 on the ear, what
parts he would have changed—he isn’t changing the
shaper.

The Master: Well, I will admit that we are in a
(1273) slightly different position right now. We are
considering the question of not the change of the ma-
chine itself, but the change of the part being made. But,
I think the general problem there is just about the
same.

Suppose the facts were that the model A cam shaft
had just a slightly larger bearing than the model T,
instead of a very much larger bearing, as far as the
end bearings and center bearings were concerned, and

a Ret eee

716 William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination

that there was no particular reason for the change that
one cam shaft would function just as well as the other,
and that it just so happened; that they decided to make
the change without any mechanical necessity or ad-
vantage of doing so, but that with such a change it
would have been impossible to use the original ma-
chine for producing the shafts in the same manner in
which it was originally designed, couldn’t you then
take into consideration the probability or the possi-
bility that if the defendant hadn’t been able to avail
itself of the infringing machine, it would very likely
have used the same shaft rather than make any altera-
tions at all in it?

Mr. Michael: Well, personally I had great diffi-
culty, in what he might have done in 1925. I think
it is too far in the realm of speculation to even be con-
sidered in evidence. And, in your last question you
certainly indulged in some rather violent assumptions,
your Honor.

You assume that a cam shaft in a motor or an auto-
mobile in a rapidly developing industry like motor ve-
hicles can be any old thing they want to make it to
put it into a machine that was current in 1914. I would
say you are going pretty far afield. The model A
motor was a decided (1274) advance and improvement
of anything Ford has had prior to that. And, now,
to sit down here and re-design the cam shaft, knowing
that when you do that you would have to redesign a
hundred other things. I think we are out of the realm
of investigation.

Mr. Farley: Suppose I may be allowed to go on—

Mr. Spohn (Interposing): Still objecting, your
Honor.

The Master: Yes.

Q. (By Mr. Farley): Now, supposing, Mr. Pioch, for
example, you made a change in the model T, you still have
the model T cam shapers available? A. Yes.

Q. And for some reason or other you found it desir-
able to increase the length of the model T shaft, the cam
shaft of the model T, let us say, 5inches— A. (Interrupt-
ing): Yes.

William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination 717

Q. And, let us say you changed the bearings, let us
say, assume that you put 2 intermediate bearings instead
of one central bearing— A. (Interposing): Yes.

Q. (Continuing): —could you have used the model T
cam shapers you had at the plant at that time to machining
the shaper? A. We could by making a new head.

Q. You would have had to— A. (Interrupting): You
would have had to rebuild the head, and re-space the tools,
and re-space your supports.

Q. But that would involve— A. (Interrupting): But
it would not affect the rest of the machine.

(1275) Q. It wouldn’t change the principal part? A.
No. The driving mechanism and the indexing mechanism
would remain.

Q. Suppose now you had decided, instead of having
the cams % of an inch long, you would make your cams
114 inches long, or wide, if you understand what I mean—
A. (Interrupting): Yes, sir.

Q. (Continuing): —would vou then have been able to
use that machine, or would you have to re-design it? A.
Yes, we would have to re-design it, because the stroke, I
think, is one inch and one-quarter, and we would have to
change the entire driving mechanism.

Q. Now, suppose when vou went to model A produc-
tion, you had had at that time, suppose vou had been
confronted with the question of infringements that we
have here now— A. (Interrupting): Yes, sir.

Q. (Continuing): —and you had found it absolutely
essential to use Walcott machines? A. No, sir.

Q. I want to state for your information, and I think
it is permissible, that the Walcott machine had heen
charged to be an infringement, and the case was tried that
was brought by the Gordon Company against the Walcott
Company was tried before his Honor, Judge Simons, and on
July 22nd, 1927, Judge Simons handed down a decision
stating that the Walcott machine did not infringe the
Gordon patent? A. Yes.

Q. In July of 1927, or rather, in the period when you
were designing (1276) the model A machine, or model A
automobile, that period ran from May of 1927 to December
of 1927? A. About that time, yes, sir.

Q. And the Ford Motor Company at that time had

16 or 18 Walcott machines already in the plant? A. Yes,
sir.

a SRE ene eee ee Se TE 4 I ee OO RY

718 William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination

Q. You knew of those machines being there, did you?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Personally? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And they had been in operation at the Ford plant
for about three years, to your knowledge? A. Yes.

Q. That is, those machines were purechased— A. (In-
terrupting): Yes, sir.

Q. (Continuing): —in the early part of 1924? A.
Yes, sir.

Q. Now, was there any occasion during that time,
during the design of the model A, or any necessity to con-
sider using the shapers in place of the Walcott machines?
A. No; I don’t remember.

4 Q. Now, let me see: During the period of your design

of the model A, were you in any way associated or con-
nected with the engineering design under Mr. Sheldrick, or
did you give any part of your time or attention to the
design of the model A car? A. Yes. At that time I was
out at the engineering laboratory where the car was being
designed every day during the process of (1277) the devel-
opment of the model A car.

Q. And, did you during that time, period of develop-
ment, consider the design of parts of the model A from the
standpoint of production? A. That was the purpose of
my being out there, to make suggestions on the design of
parts that would fit in with the production machinery.

Q. Did you make any particular suggestions, or did
you make one or several? A. I believe I made many.

Q. Very many? A. Yes, sir.

Q. In connection with the computation which you
made, Exhibit 266, that computation was based, as I under-
stood it, and had to do only with the center bearing; would
you have needed to consider the change of any other part
of the cam shaft to have used the model T shapers—let me
see—am I correct in assuming that when you talk about
cutting the center bearing— A. (Interrupting): No. We
were going to change this bearing (indicating), and this
bearing.

Mr. Spohn: The center and the end bearing.
A. Yes, that is right.

The Master: Did you make a computation of
both?

—a——

William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination 719

A. Yes.

(By Mr. Farley, continuing): The computation in-
cluded both, did it, or just the— A. (Interrupting): Well,
wait a minute—no—it just referred—this computation re-
fers to the center bearing.

Q. Yes, I thought I was correct. (1278) A. Yes, this
is the center bearing (indicating).

Q. Now, with that change, and, assuming that the old
model T shapers were still in the shop and available to
you— A. Yes.

Q. (Continuing): —what other changes, if any, would
you have had to make in the model T cam shaft as shown
by Exhibit 2372 A. If we hadn’t changed the bearings?

Q. If you had changed—we are going to assume that
you changed the center bearings. A. Yes, sir; changed
this (indicating).

Q. Yes? Now, would it be necessary to do any more
than change the center bearing if you were going to usc
the old model T shapers as they were then? A. No. I be-
lieve not. We could—my mistake was turning that crank
there. We could turn the crank the other way and make
this pressed on bearing on this end (indicating), and cut
in the other direction, then we would leave this end bearing
the same. “2

Q. Yes. A. Wouldn’t have to touch this.

Q. Wouldn’t have to touch this? A. No.

Q. You wouldn’t have to touch the bearing on the
flange? A. No. That is right. Instead of cutting in this
direction (indicating) to the left—

The Master: Well, is this shaft in the right posi-
tion? Isn’t the flanged bearing usually on the left
rather than the right?

A. Well, this is the front end. The flanged end is
this (1279) (indicating).

Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): Well, let us turn
it this way. A. Yes.

Q. Now, with these— A. (Interrupting): This (in-
dicating) is the part.

Q. (Continuing): —shaft, Exhibit 234, in front of
you? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You have the flanged end of the shaft on the left
side? <A. Yes, sir.

720 William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination

/ Q. And with the machine as shown in the blue-print
which is in front of you, Exhibit 264 or 265, I don’t know
which one it is—the tools as shown there, or, wait a min-
ute—you are holding the shaft now, the exhibit, physical
shaft, Exhibit 234, in the same position that it would be in
the machine? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the tools would be cutting from the left
towards the right? A. Yes, sir. That is, the slide would
be moving from the right to left.

Q. From right to left? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, in that position you would have interference
on the large bearing on the flanged end, and on the center
bearing? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, your testimony now is, that if you had the
tools traveling in the other direction, or, if you turn your
shaft end for end— A. (Interrupting): Yes, sir.

Q. (Continuing): —so as to bring the shaft, flanged
end now to your right hand. A. Right hand.

(1280) Q. Then in making your—which you compute
on Exhibit 266, what then would you do then as far as
any tool interference were concerned with the bearing now
on the left-hand end of the cam shaft? A. Why, under
those circumstances, conditions, we wouldn’t have to change
the front end bearing, but we would have to make, we
would have to make the rear bearing a separate piece,
that would have to be passed onto the shaft after the shap-
ing operation.

Q. Is there anything unusual about that operation?
A. No, sir.

Q. How would that affect the operation of the engine?
Would it improve or detract from it? A. It wouldn’t
affect it any.

Q. If any, it might tend somewhat to improve it,
wouldn’t it? A. Well, I won’t answer that. That would
have to be tested, Mr. Farley.

Q. Well, what other changes, if any, would you have
had to make in one of the old model T cam shaft shapers,
assuming a shaft as you have described it, in order to use
that physical shaper as you used it on the model T’s? A.
We would have to re-space the tools.

Q. Well, how about the master cams? A. And we
would have to produce new master cams.

PRR EINES: ah aS meer fe hiah hast oi OE a Ee Le es ee aN Oe ES

William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination 721

Q. Now, do you know whether or not you made any
changes at all similar to that in changing over the Walcott
machines from model A to model T shafts? A. We had to
do the same thing.

The Master: Model T to model A?
(1281) Mr. Farley: Model T to model A, yes.

A. Model T to model A, yes, and we had to make
new master cams and re-space our tools.

Q. Now, when you were cross examined about the
wooden model exhibit—

Mr. Spohn (Interposing): Just a moment, Mr.
Farley. I thought this was all preliminary yet to the
Master’s ruling on Exhibit 266.

Mr. Farley: Yes. I will re-offer Exhibit 266, but
I just have one more question and I will be through.

Mr. Spohn: Yes.

Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): In connection with
the cross examination on Exhibit 266, the wooden model,
you were asked about a number of parts, and I think the
final question was that if you found anything like that in
the prior art, as far as the prior art is concerned—do you
understand what is meant by the expression ‘‘prior art’’?
A. Well, I believe I do. It is the operation used before.

Q. Used before? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What basis, if any, was there in the prior art for
the model A type of cam shaper with the attachment such
as you have in Exhibit 256, and such as you have in the
drawings 254 and 255, and also the drawings 257 and 258?
A. Well, the wooden model A cam shaper as to prior art
represents the planer and the shaper. But the set-up of
that model, I did not see before, of one set of tools cutting
in one direction, and another set cutting in another direc-
tion. That was the answer that I had reference to to the
question I (1282) made before.

Q. Now, how about the principle of operation?
Whether or not there is any departure from the principle
of operation from the model T shapers, the old model T
shapers? A. No, sir, there isn’t.

Mr. Farley: I think that is all. And I renew my
re-offer of Exhibit 266.

ae TARY PIR IE OMY AULR ARIE IG de ENR IG Sate ICSE, co

722 William F. Pioch, Re-Cross Examination

The Master: Do you know whether there were any
Landis grinders in existence from the period, 1927 to
1931, and, which, without modification, would have
machined, or rough ground the cams on the model
A cam shaft?

A. There were grinders then, yes, sir.
Mr. Farley: Without modification?

A. Well, they would have to have new masters.

The Master: Would that have been the only
change necessary, do you know?

A. Yes, sir.

The Master: Are you familiar with the operation
of the grinder?

A. Yes, sir. That would have been the only change,
and new steady rests.

Mr. Farley: And would that change be different,

or the same as the change in the model T shaper with

the model A cam shaft of the type you just described?

A. It would mean the same change.
e * * * *
(1298) The Master: I am wondering if whether it
would be your opinion as to whether it is a desirable

feature of a side-cutting tool to have the angle of the
upper surface of the tool to be tangent to the work.

A. That is desirable, your Honor. But after you go
through all the trouble of tilting the tool, your advantages
gained there seem to have been lost in the fact that the
tool is not rigid enough.

* * * * *

(1302) Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Michael.

(1303) Q. You were speaking in your re-direct exami-
nation of leaving a bearing off of the A shafts? A. Yes,
sir; pressed bearing, yes, sir.

Q. Is that it? A. Yes, sir.

William F. Pioch, Re-Cross Examination 723
Q. Would that have added any cost to the shaft?
A. Yes.

Q. It would have also added— A. (Interrupting):
Operation for pressing it on.

Q. Operation for pressing it on? A. Operation for
pressing it on, yes, sir.

Q. And you would have had to make it first? A.
Yes, sir.

Q. (Continuing): Before you put it on? <A. That
is right, yes.

Q. Now, you said, as I understood you, that this at-
tachment on the race-horse machine was a combination
planer and shaper? A. You have reference to the Model
A cam shaper?

Q. Well, this machine, the wooden model with the at-
tachment on it. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that what you said, a combination planer and
shaper? A. You could call it that.

(1304) Q. Well, what do you call it? A. I call ita
cam shaft shaper.

Q. Yes. But in answer to a question of Mr. Farley’s
as to what you based it on, or something of that character—
A. I said it had the combination of both machines. The
principle of the planer and the shaper.

Q. Yes. A. And that it has that definitely.

Q. How? A. Definitely.

Q. Well, did you ever see a planer in which the tool
chased the work? A. I don’t believe I did.

Q. Did you ever see a shaper in which the tool— A.
(Interrupting): Chased the work? They are all that way.

Q. No; I mean where both are moving in the same
direction, one chasing the other? A. No, sir.

(1305) Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): Let’s as-
sume that Model T production stopped in May, 1927, when
you started developing A—that would have started before
that, wouldn’t it? You certainly would have made up your
minds to develop another car before you quit making
one? A. Yes, I would say so.

Q. Have you any recollection on it, or knowledge on
it?’ A. I know we were doing some Model A work right
about the time we stopped the Model T.

i ok

724 William F. Pioch, Re-Cross Examination

Q. What kind of work? A. Developing a new en-
gine: developing a new chassis.

Q. Did the engine come first, the motor; did you work
on that first, or was that one of the first things? A. I
believe it was. I believe it was.

Q. And that is the element in which these Model A
cam shafts we have been talking about here were to be
used at? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Well, did you know, or did anyone tell you at that
time that there was a suit pending against the supplier of
the Walcott machine? A. No, sir.

Q. Based on an infringement of the Gordon patent?
A. No, sir; 1 didn’t know that.

Q. You didn’t know that? A. No, sir.

Q. And no one in the Ford organization told you?
(1306) A. No, sir, no one told me.

Q. Well, were you ever informed on anything by the
Ford Motor Company that anything you are working on
involved a patent question? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who tells you that? A. Well, all depends who has
that information. That would be our patent attorney. It
might be our superintendent. It might be Mr. Weibel.

Q. Do you consult your patent attorney or Mr. Weibel?
A. Only when they come to me.

Q. Only when they come to you? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And I think this morning you said you had only
been informed there was a question on two different items
that you have handled? A. What were they?

Mr. Farley: I believe I might correct that, if you
don’t mind, Mr. Michael. That was a statement as to
questions of changing only of where a purchase of
machinery had been held up because of the fact that
questions of patent infringement came up.

A. Oh, yes, yes. I only stated I knew about those
cases, but I never had anything to do about it, or with it.

Q. (By Mr. Michael): Well, are there any other cases
in which Mr. Weibel or the patent attorney had been called
in to consider designing that you had been doing? A. It
might be, but if it necessitated suit against the Ford
(1307) Motor Company, where eventually we would have
to get rid of the thing we are talking about, they would
consult me about it, I believe.

_ ia

William F. Pioch, Re-Cross Examination 725

Q. Well, as far as you know, would that be the only in-
stance? A. Yes, as far as I know.

Q. It wouldn’t be a question of any patent that
might cover, owned by someone else, and— A. (Interrupt-
ing): If we were designing it?

Q. If you were designing it, yes? A. Oh, yes, they
would let me know about that, certainly.

Q. Let you know about that? A. About what we
are talking about.

Q. Let me make this clear. Let us assume you are
working on a machine, or want to use a certain machine.
A. We have been assuming that right along.

Q. Or want to continue to use a certain machine;
there is a patent on the machine held by some third party
who claims that your supplier of that machine is in-
fringing? A. Yes. |

Q. Would you know about that, or would that come
to your attention in the ordinary course of business? A.
It might.

Q. And what would you do about it? A. After they
called my attention to it?

Q. Well, yes. A. I would start work on it.

Q. You would try to avoid the infringing— A. (In-
terrupting): I would try to avoid the infringing part
(1308) of the machine, yes.

Q. You would try to avoid the infringing part of the
machine? A. Yes.

Q. And if you couldn’t avoid it, what would you do?
A. I guess I would have to give up if I couldn’t. It would
be the only thing left.

Well, I am assuming that nothing could be done—he

said if there is nothing else could be done, and we were
stuck, then we would just be stuck.
\/Q. Now, on the changes that you propose to make in
the A shaft, or said you might have considered in 1924,
if you wanted to build a shaper, your first proposal, as 1
understand it, was to increase the diameter of two bearings,
and reduce their longitudinal extent? A. Yes, sir, that
is right. ¥

Q. And your second one was to put on a second bear-
ing, or cut one off and put on a pressed bearing later?
A. Correct.

, REECE ETA ee eee wen

726 William F. Pioch, Re-Cross Examination

Q. But that would still entail reducing the longitudinal
extent of the center bearing and increasing the diameter?
A. Correct.

Q. And, then, in either of those events, you would
have to shorten up or make some change in the tool holders,
would you not? A. I think we—oh, one tenth of an inch.

Q. Well, I think the sketch you made of that, you
showed the end of the tool holder as perfectly square
across the bottom? A. Yes.

(1309) Q. When, as a matter of fact, they had a pitch
to them, didn’t they? Didn’t the tool holder, as used in
the shaper, have a pitch forward? A. Yes, sir, that is to
take care of the proper cutting angle.

Q. I am not speaking of the tool now. I am speaking
of the tool holder. A. It had a pitch.

Q. Yes. The under edge on it was pitched forward,
wasn’t it? I think it is shown that way in the drawing.

Mr. Farley: Suppose you look at the drawing.

Q. You also have it in your wooden model. A. (Re-
ferring to drawings.) No, these are not the ones.

Mr. Michael: What exhibit is this?
Mr. Spohn: 254.

Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): And, in this exhibit,
254,— <A. (Interrupting): Yes.

Q. (Continuing): —aren’t the tool holders all pitched
forwardly? A. Yes, sir, in the cam shapers, yes, sir.

Q. And the tools all slant forward? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, how would you have to change that if your
—— was increased? A. You wouldn’t have to change
it.

Q. You would leave— A. You would leave it at the
same shape, You would bring this line up one-tenth of
an inch—this line right here (indicating). That tool holder
could be brought up there one-tenth of an inch.

(1310) The Master: Leave this discussion off the
record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr, Farley: Suppose you mark that, Mr. Pioch,
on the Exhibit 254.
The Master: 254, yes.

BER ee

William F. Pioch, Re-Direct Examination 727

(The witness does as instructed by counsel. )
(Discussion off the record.)

Q. (By Mr. Michael): Well, now, with that change
you have just sketched there, your clearance would still be
rather critical, would it not, between the bearing and the
actual cam? A. Well, 1 would have to lay that out to
scale.

Q. Well, you said one-tenth of an inch? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you did that after some figuring? A. Yes,
sir.

Q. Well, assume you gave it one-tenth of an inch, you
still have quite a critical relationship there between the
bearing and the actual cam? A. No, I don’t believe so.

Q. For loading and unloading purposes? A. No, sir.

Q. Wouldn’t be any likelihood of that? A. I don’t
think so.

Mr. Michael: That is all I have.

Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.

Q. Just two more questions, I think. On the proposi-
tion that you first discussed about the Model A shaft and the
changes of (1311) the bearings where you made your com-
putation upon Exhibit 266, if you had merely changed the
length of the bearings and probably increased the diam-
eters, would you state whether or not that would have
added any cost or any extra operations? A. It would not.

The Master: You recognize that there is more of
a strain on the tool in the Westinghouse machine than
in the Walcott, or do you?

A. Yes, there is.
The Master: But, you think that the—

A. (Interrupting): The advantages gained by the
tool following like on the Walcotts, I believe the advantages
are lost, because from the tests we made have shown that.

Q. (By Mr. Farley): In other words, the effort to keep
the (1312) tool constant to the work in the Walcott ma-
chine which is accomplished by all of the oscillating cams,
oscillating tools, springs and other things, is a penalty

728 Niels Boesen, Direct Examination

which you have to pay that isn’t worth the price of keep-
ing the tool constant? A. That is correct.
Q. Over Westinghouse? A. That is correct.
Mr. Farley: I think that is all.

(1315) Niets Borsen was thereupon called as a witness
on behalf of the Defendant herein, and having been first
duly sworn, testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.

Q. Your full name, please? A. Niels Boesen.

Q. Where do you live, Mr. Boesen? Where do you
live? A, On 12720 Tuller Avenue.

Q. And you are employed by the Ford Motor Com-
pany? A. Yes,

Q. What position at the Ford Company? Your job
at the Ford Company? A. Well, I take care of designing
special machines. I got a gang that does that only.

Q. And you work in Mr. Pioch’s department? A. Yes,
under Mr. Pioch.

Q. Now, did Mr. Pioch give you any particular in-
structions concerning the making of some drawings relat-
ing to the Ford cam shaft shaper? A. Yes, sir.

Q. I show you Exhibits 254 and 255 and ask you if
you are familiar with these drawings? A. Yes, I am.

Q. And will you just state what yk you did in con-
nection with the particular drawings? “A. Well, Mr. Pioch
brought these prints down to my division and told me that
that was a machine that had been used for the (1316) old
machine cam shaft, and he told me we could find a way
whereby we could change that machine over to use on a
Model A. As to now, we couldn’t use the Model A because
there isn’t room for two tools there. So, he asked me to de-
vise, or help to devise, a way whereby we could change that
machine over so that we could use it on the Model A.

Q. Yes, go ahead. A. And we studied, of course, and
talked about it and came to the idea of which we made a
model, which is over there (indicating).

te Reet, BE sere Baas. +

ee

Niels Boesen, Direct Examination 729

The Master: I don’t know if it is of any im-
portance, but you weren’t familiar with the machine
itself until Mr. Pioch brought it to your attention?

A. No. I have never seen prints before nowMt

Q. (By Mr. Farley): Now, were you able, when Mr.
Pioch brought the particular prints to you, to tell from an
examination of the prints the way in which the old machine
worked? A. No, not right away. It was a conclusion of
ours—

The Master (Interposing): Pardon me, Mr.
Boesen, I think if you are careful not to rattle these
papers, the stenographer can probably understand you
better.

Mr. Michael: What was the last answer, please?
I didn’t get that.

The Master: Read the question also, Mr. Reporter.

(The question and answer were then read by the
reporter.)

_ Q. (By Mr. Farley): After you had inspected these
blue-prints— A. (Interrupting): Yes.

Q. (Continuing): —for a couple of hours— (1317)
A. Yes.

Q. Did you then understand the manner in which
the machines shown in the drawings worked? A. Most of
that.

Q. The old machine? A. Yes; the main movements,
I could see that.
¥/Q. Now, then, what next did you do? A. Well, we
came to the conclusion that we could take those two cams
by the method that we have shown over there on that
model. :

Q. ‘‘That we could cut those two cams,’’ did you say?
A. Yes, by that method we showed on that model we got
over there.

Q. Now, then, what did you do? A. Well, we made
a layout of which you have a print, and from that we built
a model.

Q. Now, I call your attention to certain crayon lines
on these two exhibits. A. Yes.

Q. 254 and 255? A. Yes. a

730 Niels Boesen, Direct Examination

Q. Were those crayon lines on those prints when they
were first brought to you by Mr. Pioch? A. No.

Q. And who put these additional crayon lines on these
prints? A. The designer, who took care of it, and myself,
Mr. Pioch figured out how they were going to do it. He
put the lines down.

Q. That is, one of the men who is working under you?
(1318) A. Yes.

Q. In Mr. Pioch’s department? A. Yes.

Q. And when you referred to the layout of which I
have a blueprint, you were referring to the sheets of draw-
ings, 257, 258, and 259, is that correct? A. According to
this one here (indicating).

Q. And that is Exhibit No. 257? A. Yes.

Q. And who made this particular drawing? A. That
same man.

Q. What was his name? A. Wayne Houtary. He is
one of my men.

The Master: How do you spell that?

A. H-o-u-t-a-r-y.

Q. And how about the drawing, Exhibit No. 258? A.
The same.

Q. The same with respect to that? A. Yes.

Q. Made by Mr. Houtary? A. Yes.

Q. And the same with respect to drawing No. 259? A.
The same thing.

\ .Q. Made by Mr. Houtary? A. Yes, sir.

~Q. Now, let me ask you, Mr. Boesen, in making these
drawings, and assigning this job to your assistant, Mr.
Houtary, did you depart in any way from your regular
procedure there around (1319) the Ford plant? A. No.
That is the way we do it.

Q. Are you familiar with the standard shaper drive?
A. Yes.

Q. Will you state whether or not, or, let me ask you
—how long have you had personal knowledge, yourself, of
the type of machine tool known as the shaper? A. Oh, I
would say—oh, I would say 45 years.

Q. And, now, will you state whether or not the drive
for reciprocating the work carriage as shown originally
in the drawings, 254 and 255, is or is not the same as the

Eo

Niels Boesen, Direct Examination 731

standard shaper drive that you have known about for 45
years? A. Yes, that is the same thing.

Q. Will you state just what you did with respect to
the two tools that you referred to as not being able to cut
the cams on account of interference with the bearings on
the Model A shaft? What did you do with respect to those
two tools? A. We mounted them on a slide that is 90
degrees away from the other slides. You see, the other two
slides came this way (indicating).

Q. The other came down vertically? A. Yes. And
this one we attempted to make is horizontal.

Q. Yes; and at 90 degrees? A. And operated on the
same shaft as the one that operates the cam shaft for cut-
ting the other cams. We drew that right in the same shaft
by making that crank so much larger that the slide has a
chance to not only catch up, but to do its work and finishing
at the same time the motion of the cam (1320) shaft ends.
In other words, all the tools on the top, as well as the tools
on the slide to end at the same time. ~~

The Master: Will you just read what you have,

Mr. Reporter?

Mr. Farley: Yes, I was going to suggest that.
(The answer was then read by the reporter.)
The Master: That is all right.

A. This should have been longer (indicating).
The Master: All right.

Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): Now, as I under-
stand it, the machine, in your testimony, in so far as the
mechanism for driving the slide which carried the two
tools that are horizontally arranged are concerned— A.
(Interrupting): Yes.

F

i

Q. (Continuing): —you hooked the driving mecha-
nism for that right to the same driving mechanism? A.
Exactly.

Q. And that mechanism— A. (Interrupting): Yes.

Q. (Continuing): —which you hooked that to was the
old shaper drive? A. Extension of the shaft, of course,
had to be done.

Q. And the same sort of a driving mechanism that has
been used, to your knowledge, for 45 years? A. Yes.

732 Niels Boesen, Direct Examination

Q. In the shaper? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, will you state, in so far as your slide is con-
cerned with the two horizontally arranged tools; would you
call that (1321) a shaper-cutting action? A. Yes.

Q. You understand? A. Yes.

Q. And that shaper-cutting action is one in which
you have the tools, the shaper tool mounted? A. Yes.

Q. Onareciprocating ram? A. Yes.

Q. And as the ram which carries the tools? A. (In-
terrupting): The work is standing still.

Q. Beg your pardon? A. The work is standing still.

Q. The work is standing still? A. Yes.

Q. And the cutting action is performed by driving
this ram? <A. Yes.

Q. And making the tool traverse across the work? A.
Yes.

Q. Now, is that principle and that same driving mech-
anism employed in this slide with the two horizontal tools
that you laid out? A. Yes; yes, that is the same.

Q. Do you know about how long it took this man and
yourself to prepare these particular drawings? A. You
mean just what we made here (indicating) ?

Q. Yes. A. Oh, I would say two—three days—three
days, I think, probably, it took him about three days.

(1322) Q. I don’t see any particular date on these
drawings? A. No. We forgot to put that on.

Q. Do you remember when it was these drawings were
made? A. Oh, it is about half a year ago; something like
that. I don’t exactly remember. I think that is what it is.

Q. Now, in connection with this general proposition
of using the shaper, such as shown in the drawings 254 and
255— A. (Interrupting): Yes.

Q. (Continuing): —for the machining of a Model A
cam shaft, did you consider any other type of modification
of that machine, other than what you have put on these
drawings? A. I think there was a couple of other ideas,
but I have forgot now what they were. However, this was
the one that we talked about that we thought would be
the one we would employ.

Q. Yes. Was this particular modification considered,
if you know, or, if you recall, from the standpoint of em-
ploying the old Model T shapers such as shown in these

SE ee eS Tee eee aod

—.

Niels Boesen, Direct Examination 733

prints to the fullest extent, or, was it considered from the
standpoint of what you would do if you had started to re-
design the machine entirely? A. Well, if I had to start
to re-design the machine entirely for that same cam shaft,
I would have made it a little bit different. I would make it
in such a way that it would be, still be tool slides; one that
would hold the stationary tool; one that would slide the
cam shaft, and that slide that we have, I would put, ]
would put them opposite each other, 90 degrees—you know,
this way (indicating), and that. I would make them so
the tools would cut oppositett

The Master: You would make them all hori-
zontally?

(1323) A. What?

The Master: You would make them all hori-
zontally?

A. Yes; and they would counteract each other.

The Master: You have two on one side and six on
the other?

A. No. I think I would take—let’s see—four on each
side.

The Master: Yes.

Q. (By Mr. Farley): Would the making of the draw-.
ings such as you have made, and which you have before you
for the re-design you are just talking about, present any
different or more difficult problem than you are confronted
with there in your regular daily work there, Mr. Boesen?
A. No, not a bit. I could see we could make that.

Q. About how many special machines have you made
designs for in your experience as a machine designer? A.
Oh, gee, that’s—that’s hard for me to say.

Q. It would be hard for youto say? A. Yes. I never
kept track of them, but it is a good many.

Q. Would it be a matter of— A. (Interrupting):
Several hundred, I would say.

Q. How long have you been doing that particular type
of work at the Ford Company? A. Since I came to the
Ford—that was—I think it was ’21, or—’21, yes.

Q. And were you doing work of that type in any other
plant? <A. Yes.

734 Niels Boesen, Direct Examination

Q. Before you worked at Ford? A. Yes.

Q. Had you designed special machinery in other
plants? (1324) A. Sure.

Q. Where, for example? A. Lincoln.

Q. And Lincoln Motors? A. Before it was bought by
Ford.

Q. And how long were you with the Lincoln? A. As
long as it lasted.

Q. How many years? A. Was it three years? I guess.
Yes.

Q. Well, that would be, that would have been from
about 1917 to 1920, or thereabouts, is that about right? A.
I came to Lincoln right after the War.

Q. That would be between 1918 and 1921? A. Yes,
and I was there—

Q. (Interposing): And before that you were with
Northway, did you say? A. Oh, I was with several other
concerns.

Q. In this country? A. Right here in Detroit. I was
once with the Brush. In fact, that was started in 1909 here
in Detroit.

Q. Was Mr. Alanson P. Brush, who is now in the court-
room, in charge of the company at that time? A. I don’t
recall. We started to make tools for the Briscoe at that
time.

Q. Now, was it in 1909 that you first started in the de-
sign of machine tools for the automobile industry? A.
Yes.

Q. So then for the last 30 years— (1325) A. (Inter-
rupting): Yes, sir.

Q. (Continuing): You have been in that work? A.
Yes, sir.

Q. And has your work been mostly that of designing
special shop machines? A. Yes, sir. Tools; also work.

Q. Tools? A. Yes.

Q. Will you state whether or not the work in that con-
nection at the Ford Company differs from the experience
you have had in other companies? Is it the same? A. It
has not—it is the same.

Q. It isthe same? A. It is the same, yes.

Q. Had you done any—had any experience in the de-
sign of special machinery in other industries outside of the

5

———

Niels Boesen, Direct Examination 735

automotive industry before you got started in the auto-
motive industry? A. No.

Q. That was your first machine tool designing work?
A. Yes.

Q. Now, in addition to these drawings which we have
just been discussing, you prepared some other drawings
showing a different expedient or different way of having
the cam shaft, or using the cam shaft for shaping Model A
cam shaper, did you not?) A. Yes. Just a little sketch
would show another way of—

Q. (Interposing): Yes.

Mr. Farley: I produce two more drawings and ask
that they be marked Exhibits 268 and 269.

(1326) (Exhibits 268 and 269 were then marked
by the reporter.)

Mr. Farley: Now, I] might state at this point, if the
Court please, that Mr. Oberhoffen, the original de-
signer of the Model T cam shaper, was interviewed by
me and he outlined a scheme that he not only stated he
had in mind back in the days when he was at the Ford
Company, but, when I asked him the question, **Could
your machine be used for the Model A?’’ he said it
could.

I asked him if he could make a sketch outlining
briefly the simple scheme that he would—that he did
have in mind.

Oberhoffen has recently been very ill, and his
hands are very shaky. T can show you some corre-
spondence that I have had with him, which I will pro-
duce after a while, or at some later date, if necessary.
And, he requested me to have those drawings prepared,
explaining to myself, and also to Mr. Brush, who was
present at the time, just what conception he had, and
we had Mr. Boesen make these drawings from the ideas
which Mr. Oberhoffen had passed on to us.

The Master: Well, is he going to testify here?

Mr. Farley: Beg your pardon?

The Master: Well, is he going to testify here?

Mr. Farley: Yes, he is going to testify if the good
Lord spares him.

I might state also in that connection, that I had
hoped that we could have Mr. Oberhoffen here by the

736 Niels Boesen, Direct Examination

end of this week. I communicated with him, however,
and learned that he had had an operation within the
last week or ten days and that his doctor advised him
that it would not be very advisable for him (1327) to
travel. And, I am afraid that we will have to take Mr.
Obevhoffen’s deposition at Rockford, Illinois. He is
at Rockford, Illinois, and he is now working for the
Ingersoll Milling Machine Company.

The purpose of having Mr. Boesen testify concern-
ing these is because these drawings were actually made
at the Ford Company under his supervision, to put
down in graphic form the ideas about this matter which
we will have Mr. Oberhoffen testify to later.

Mr. Spohn: Then, it may be understood that the
testimony of the witness concerning these drawings,
we reserve our rights with respect to it, until we hear
from the gentleman?

The Master: Yes. I won’t make any ruling on it
until that time.

Mr. Farley: Yes.

The Master: Go ahead.

Mr. Farley: Yes. I thought that would avoid a
lot of argument, that statement of mine about admis-
sibility.

The Master: Yes.

Q. (By Mr. Farley): Now, Mr. Boesen, I show you

the drawing, Exhibit 268, and will you please tell the
Court what that is? A. No.

Q. Did you get the question? A. No.

The Master: Read it back.
Mr. Farley: Yes, read it, please.

(The question was then read by the reporter.)

A. Another idea of shaping the cams and the shaft.

(1328) Q. On what type of a shaft? A. On—let me
see—this is the Model A.

Q. Now, just a minute, Mr. Boesen. A. Yes.

Q. This particular sketch that you have before you, I
notice, shows a rather large shaft? A. Yes.

Q. That is not intended to represent any particular
cam shaft, is it? A. Well, yes. That is a truck shaft.

The Master: A what shaft?

PIE Se ere eae SL DF EA TROL RS INLET IES ITE ARO? SBE IBIE ME AAR BIS SI NO

aE

Niels Boesen, Direct Examination 737

A. A truck shaft.

Q. (By Mr. Farley): A truck shaft, or a tractor?
A. No—truck.

Q. What? A. No. Tractor—I think it is a tractor
cam shaft.

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385610_0072%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.