Tuomas Vohlonen

In September 1877, Juho and Helena Vohlonen had a son in Vohloja ranch, Orimattila. Later they had four more children, sons Kelpo Hyvä (surveyor, wrestler) and Oiva Lahja (officer) and daughters Sievä Maria a.k.a. Maija (agronomist, sheep specialist, author) and Oma Eeva (agronomist), but this son was nominated Tuomas, with only one first name. Parents called him Tommo, and that nomination was used through his life. Only a few years before his death Tuomas could be seen in official patent papers. During the siblings' childhood the family moved to Lappeenranta for a short while, then to Kekäleenmäki, Ruokolahti. There Juho Vohlonen worked as smith and also did some farming. Helena and Juho Vohlonen weren't highly educated, but they had decided their children will get the highest education possible. Including daughters, which wasn't very typical of that time. Earlier stages of school were done in Ruokolahti, later stages in Lappeenranta. Tuomas went to college in Finnish Viipuri, nowadays Russified Vyborg. After that, Tuomas studied in Finnish polytechnic to become a surveyor.

The original patent

On 10 April 1933, Tuomas Vohlonen applied for a patent for a liquid compass, with the description "liquid compass with compass needle and liquid entirely sealed in a container made of celluloid". On 3 September 1934, Vohlonen supplemented the application with edited patent demands: 1: Method of manufacturing a liquid compass, in which the liquid chamber is manufactured of two or more pieces and jointed by gluing or soldering, to form a sealed chamber, 2: Liquid is pressed into chamber through a small hole, which is then sealed with glue or soldering and 3: Liquid compass built under conditions 1 and 2, and 4: the needle chamber is made entirely of celluloid or other substance like it. Now the application included the fabrication method. On 11 September 1934, Vohlonen made another supplement, which included the same as the previous, only rephrased. On 25 January 1935, Vohlonen was granted a patent number 16285 for a method of manufacturing a liquid compass and a liquid compass manufactured accordingly. The patent was effective from the date of first application, 10 April 1933.

In November 1932, a Swedish company Nya Instrumentfabriks Aktiebolaget Lyth had applied for a patent also in Finland for "vätskekompass", a liquid filled compass. In the application the needle chamber was described as being built of two different materials, of which only the upper part was made of flexible material. Nothing was mentioned about method of fabrication. This caused a threat and delay for accepting Vohlonen's patent. However, these applications were not considered to be about the same kind of product, so both Vohlonen and Lyth were granted a patent. This is one of the reasons why Vohlonen had to supplement his application: he knew the original formulation wouldn't succeed.

Oy Physica AB, a Finnish company, had made compasses under license by Vohlonen, and these resembled heavily the original Suunto M-311, only minor changes were made. The license expired in 1935. In a publication by Metos Oy about their company history, it is said: In the same premises as Metos Oy, a sister company administrated by same owners, Oy Physica Ab was a supplier for Finnish military forces. It employed about 20 people. The most significant article for Physica was a compass, competing the market with Suunto Oy. Physica sued Vohlonen, because, according to them, the supplements described a totally different product, the original application didn’t mention anything about a manufacturing method and, in addition, the method was elsewhere used long before the patent application, thus, the patent should be cancelled. On 27 September 1940 the first stage of court gave a statement: It is not up to them to judge whether the patent was given according to faulty descriptions, thus the patent remains effective as it was. On 27 March 1942, the second stage of court gave a statement, according to which all the structures described in the patent were known before, and thus the patent shouldn’t have been granted, and declared the patent void. On 9 September 1943, the supreme court abolished the second stage judgement, ratified the first stage judgement and thus, the patent remained effective.