454 FEDERAL REPORTES. �There was no pledge of secrecy proved here, and there was Bome evidence that none was exacted from anybody. There ■was no evidence of concealment except that the factory was not open to chance visitors. It was understood, I suppose, as moat factories are condueted with no intention of divulg- ing any secrets, and none to have curious and prying persons admitted ; but without any special precautions beyond what prudent men, who do not care to be interrupted in their busi- ness, would usually adopt. For my own part I should have some doubt whether a pledge of secrecy, exacted of a number of workmen who had nothing to do with the machine in ques- tion, and had opportunity to examine it if they chose, would make the use a secret one. There is some evidence intended to prove that the use was experimental ; but, upon the whole record, it is clear that the machines were used for about 20 years in the ordinary business of the patentee, and worked so well that when Moulton first expressed an inten- tion of leaving the factory and building a machine for the defendants the plaintiff raised his wages one-third. He did not say it would involve a breach of trust. A short time before the patent was applied for some experiments wera made, which resulted in nothing of importance, and, I fear, were intended to benefit the patent rather than the machine. An improvement has now been made, but it is not described in the specification or shown in the modal. At ail events, a machine which, whether entirely satisfactory or not, has been run in the ordinary course of business for 20 or for 30 years, and which is patented precisely as it was used, cannot be properJy called an experimental machine. �The decree must therefore be : Bill dismissed, with costs. ����
