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 #:
00029
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Books
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.

PABT m. 17 In the lidflilnh Tt'Hsf cnsc the coiii-t declared the ])i'(>a(l principle that patents do not conl'er iinninnity from the prnlnhit i( »ns (d' the Shennan Act, going" Ix'vond t he jx ►sit ion taken hy the ( loN'ernincmt in that case, which was that j)atents on tools do not give the ow ner (d' t he |)atenl t lie I'ight to cont r(d the cominem' in tlic uni)at('nt('(l ware. Ill Virtue v. Crcdnienj P(tck(i(je Mfg. Co. and The Owatonna Mfg. Co. (227 U. S., 8), Mr. Justice McKeiiiia said : Of course patents and patent riglits can not be made a cover for a violation of law, as we sfiid in St mi (bird Sanitary ManufacturiiKj ('(nil i>(ttt ij V. t^in'tcd States (226 U. S., , 20).' The Supreme Court of the United States in Bauer v. O'DonneJl (229 U. S., 1), applied to patented articles the same principle which it had laid down in regard to unpatented articles in the Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. Park cf* Sons case (supra), and in respect to copyrighted books in Bohhs-MerriU Co. V. Straus (supra), holding that a patentee may not limit the prices at which future retail sales of the patented articles may be made. As we point out elsewhere in this brief, the positive film is not a patented article, and therefore in dealing with a combination restraining commerce in positive films we are not considering a combination restraining commerce in patented articles. However, even if the defendants are right in their 04717—14 3