It is true that HR269 doesn't explicitly credit Meucci with the invention of the telephone, but the sentence "Whereas if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell" is very telling. Otherwise, The Guardian would have refrained from being explicit in the article I linked to.

@VincenzoOliva Given the extensive criticism of HR269, I wouldn't give that too much credit. I'm not a legal expert, but I'd say that Howard Rockman's book seems to do a pretty good job of presenting the evidence and merits of both sides of the case. As an historian, I note the existence of the controversy, but I am not convinced by the evidence.

@VincenzoOliva Also, journalists are rarely historians. And, to be fair, The Grauniad is no stranger to controversy! ;-)

Thanks, I'll edit my answer a bit. Anyway, do you doubt Bell exploited Meucci's materials?

@VincenzoOliva Evidence presented in the various court cases seems to say that Meucci's caveat was for a mechanical, rather than an electrical, telephone. If that is correct, then I'd have to say there is no evidence at all to support the idea that Bell exploited Meucci's design.

That's utter nonsense, the device was called elettrofono, "electrophone". Meucci started to think of his design after some electrotherapy experiments in 1849. And Giovanni Schiavo is an Italian-American historian who defined the verdict you mentioned as one of the most blatant judiciary mistakes in the annals of American justice.

And yet, Meucci's 1871 caveat described only a "metallic conductor as a sound conveying medium".

Leaving aside the partisan claims on either side, Howard B. Rockman is a Patent Lawyer. He has examined the actual evidence from the cases and found that it doesn't support the claims made about Meucci's influence on Bell's work.

(I meant " telettrofono " and similarly for the "English" word ) If anything, I think that description is simply wrong. Why would Meucci even found a company, prior to the whole controversy, whose name indicates the electrical nature of the device?

As for Rockman

I also know that there are claims that Bell conducted experiments in the same laboratory where Meucci's materials had been stored by Western Union. Again, there is no evidence to support this. Others who working in that laboratory (e.g. P.D. Richards) published reports and sketches of Bell's work. None report anything like Meucci's devices.

It really doesn't matter if you think the description in the caveat is wrong. It is the primary historical source, and it was Meucci's description of his own device!

I'll have to read Rockman's work. But I would agree with his work only if he proved that Meucci's materials were actually lost by Western Company

The link to Rockman's book is in my answer.

Of course what I think doesn't matter, that was just a comment; this is a chat, isn't it? :D

Yes, but you need to be careful. Libel laws still apply. Quoting evidence is fine, and statements of opinion are (usually) fine - depending on jurisdiction. Quoting someone else's published work is generally fine. Unsupported assertions that could be considered defamatory can land you in hot water.

I've worked as a professional historical researcher. It probably shows in how I write my answers and comments!

Yeah, I guess ahah

then I'll further edit my answer, I'd be glad if you could give me feedback here on the edits

No problem.

By the way, the story that Bell conducted experiments in the same laboratory where Meucci's materials had been stored by Western Union is nonsense. Meucci had sent his device to Edward Grant of the American District Telegraph Company in New York - not Western Union.

This article is worth reading for background in that regard.

Indeed, it seems Western Union is not involved! How many "respectable" articles debunked

Thanks. I've updated my answer

I think I've found the source of the "electro" in Meucci's "telettrofono". The Wikipedia article on Meucci has the text of his caveat. It says that he increased the effect by: "electrically insulating both the conductor and the parties who are communicating".

By electrically insulating his device, Meucci effectively eliminated that source of noise. It was still a mechanical telephone, but improved by being electrically insulated.

Perhaps it's best to describe Meucci's "telettrofono" as Meucci's "electrically insulated mechanical telephone".

Thanks for an interesting diversion. :-D

I see, thanks to you! :D