Brief for the United States (1914)

Record Details:

Title:
Brief for the United States
Date:
1914
Publisher:
Washington, D.C. : United States. Government Printing Office. Office of the Public Printer
Volume:
Brief for the United States
Leaf #:
00027
Language:
English
Collection:
Books and Government & Law
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library
Sponsor:
{"Media History Digital Library","Richard Koszarski",Domitor}
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
June 06, 2024
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

i'.\i;r III. 15 and cxicnsixc, l>iil llicy do nnt L;i\'(' any more than otlicr I'i^lits a iiniNci'.sal license against positive proiiihitions. 'I'lic Slici-nian law is a limitation of* rii^'lits wliicli nia\ he |)iish('d to ('\ il ('ons('<iuen(*(\s and 1 lici'ct'oi'c ycstraiiiod. He also said : (lU)) 'I'lie {'liar.i;'e eliall('n<;'es consideration of the relation between that whieli the manufacturers engaged to do and the protection of the exclusive right attached to the invention. Upon such considei'ation how far the licenses transcend such right and violate the Sherman law we can then determine. And w^e shall keep in. mind and apply the prin' ciple expressed in Bemcnt v. National Harrow Co, (186 U. S., 70, 92), that the Shennan law clearly does not refer to that kind of a restraint of interstate commerce which may arise from reasonable and legal conditions imposed upon the assignee or licensee of a patent by the owner thereof, restricting the terms upon which the article may be used and the price to be demanded therefor. Such a construction of the act we have no doubt was never contemplated by its framers.'' In our inquiry we shall accept arguendo the statement of defendants of their inducement and purpose. We say " arguendo because the asserted inducement and purpose are denied by the Government, it contending, as we have seen, that the Arrott