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 #:
00034
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.

22 PAET m. r. S. V. Patterson, 205 Fed., 292, 297, 298. (Dist. Ct. Sou. Dist. Ohio.) U. S. V. Great Lakes Towing Co., 208 Fed., 733, 744. (Dist. Ct. Xoi^h. Dist. Ohio.) International Harvester Co. v. Missouri, 234 U. S., 199, 209. See, also, decision of the United States court in TJ. S. V. International Harvester Co., August 12, 1914, at St. Paul (decision not yet reported), and U. S. Y. Pacific & Arctic By. Co. (228 U. S., 87 at p. 104). Defendants' counsel argue that the o^vner of a patent in licensing the use of his invention may attach conditions to the licensed use. This we grant {Dick v. Henry, 224 U. S., 1). There the court said (j). 24) : The property right of a patented machine may pass to a purchaser with no right of use, or with only the right to use in a specified way, or at a specified place, or for a specified purpose. But under the Dick decision restraints so imposed must be legal and reasonable conditions," attached to the use of the patented article. They must be restrictions not inherently violative of some substantive law.'' Mr. Justice Lurton said (p. 26) : Where, then, is the line between a lawful and an unlawful qualification upon the use? This is a question of statutory construction.