Brief for the United States (1914)

Record Details:

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.

20 PART m. almost completely destroyed. The findings further show that the associations employed various methods of ascertaining whether prices of copyrighted books were cut and whether there was competition in the sale thereof at retail, and issued cut-off lists, so called, directing the discontinuance of the sale of copyrighted books to offenders, and that the plaintiff's in error, who had failed to maintain net prices upon copyrighted books, had been put upon the cut-off' lists and were unable to secure a supply of such books in the ordinar}^ course of business. It further appears that in some instances dealers who had supplied the plaintiffs in error were wholly ruined and driven out of business ; that the Booksellers' Association widely circulated the names of such dealers and warned others to avoid their fate, and that various circulars were issued to the trade at large by both associations warning all persons against dealing with the plaintiffs in error or other so-called price cutters. Judge Rose said in his opinion in the court below in the ''Bathtub Trust" case (191 Fed., 172, 190) : A ])atentee is as much subject to the laws of the land as is any otlier innii. All men know that Congress never intendcnl, when it ])assed the Sherman Act, to cliang(ยป the patent law. 11 did not do so. ^Plie ])atentee may, in sj)it(' of the law, nioiio|)(>li/(^ for the term of his patent the thing which he or his assignor inventcnl. Neither at common law nor in this country by statute has he (^ver had a right to monopolize anything else. As