FRED MEDART MANUFACTURING CO.

#2
Dr. Forrest C. Allen
Lawrence, Kansas

contributed to the game the convex idea. I asked him if the Rules Committee
would then license others to manufacture the board and we, in turn, to re-
ceive a royalty from such competitors, ani he said “definitely No" - that if
we turned the papers over to the Rules Committee it would be the same as if
we did not have any patent.

That is the satus of this matter at this time. We simply don't know how to
over-come this obstacle ami I am writing you for advice.

Incidentally, I should advise that Porter said if we had a patent on the
method of fabricating the board, there would be no objection, but on the basic
patent of the convex idea applied to a board, that was something else again.
Between us — and very confidentially - if we could get a patent on the fabri-
cation of the board (a process patent) we would have a much stronger patent
than we would on a basic patent, but we don't see how that is possible.

In any event, I wonder if you can give us any advice as concerns the Rules Com-
mittee concerning this question. We wondered whether or not the Committee was
definitely committed to turning down something like the convex idea because of
patents. Another thought that comes to mind is that possibly, in spite of the
thought advanced by Porter, there could be enough of the Rules Members that
would vote for the adoption of the convex board as optional equipment, patent
or no patent. In other words, we look to you, Phog, for any information you
might have on the subject that would help us in our present foggy condition.
Needless to say, your remarks will be held in strict confidence.

Believe me, Mr. Medart and I will appreciate hearing from you in the above con-
nection.

Kimiest regards.
Cordially yars,
FRED MEDART MANUFACTURING CO.

Sanles Feonstiitn Manager

REW/AC