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 #:
00033
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.

PAKT III. t(M'\'('i'yt liiiii;' not \';ili(lly cl.-i iiiic(l in his ));itciit he is as (►tlici men. If hy the coiniiKdi law or tlic statutes of tlic State or hy the enaetineiits of Congress men are r()rl)i(l(h'n to restrain trade or to nionopoli/e it, a j)atentee may not restrain trade oi* attempt to monopolize it in anythini;exee|)t that which is covei'ed hy his j)atent. ■X * * -K * it does not ^ive a rii^iit to the ])atentee to sell indulgences to violate the law of the land, be it the Sherman Act or another. * ^ ^ ^ * A patentee who monopolizes his invention breaks no law. lie wdio uses his pro])erty right to exclude others from the making, ' selling, or using his invention for the purpose and with the etfect of making a combination to restrain trade in something from which his patent gives him no right to exclude others, does break the law. •x ^ -x ^ -x He can not use his patent rights to restrain trade in unpatented bathtubs. The decisions of the court in the Bathtuh Trust"' case have been followed in the following cases : Waltham Watch Co. v. Keene, 202 Fed., 225, 238, 239. (Dist. Ct. Sou. Dist. N. Y.) U, S, V. New Departure Mfg. Co., 204 Fed., 107, 114. (Dist. Ct. West. Dist. N. Y.) Ingersoll v. McCole, 204 Fed., 147, 149. (Dist. Ct. Minn.)