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.

VAUT III. 23 It \v;is upon this (jucstion that this coiiri (li\ idcd ill t he Jh'c/i case, the dissent iiii^" opinion holding t liat, the re8tri(*tic)ii there nndei* eonsidei'at ion was a Vi'.stri('ti(ni eoneernini; the use of niatei'ials and not a restriction upoii the nse (d' the machine pi'otected by tlie ])at(Mit law. Mr. ('hi(d' dnstiee White said (p. r.2) : As tlie ric'lit to employ any desired o])erative materials in nsing the patented machine was not a rii^lit deprived from or protected l)y tlie patent hiw, hut was a mere ri.<;-ht arising from the ownership of property, it can not be said that tlu^ restriction concerning; the nse of the materials was a restriction npon the nse of the machine protected by the patent law. When I say, it can not be said," I mean it can not be so done in reason, since the inevital)le resnlt of so doing would be to declare that the patent protected a use which it did not embrace. And this, after all, serves to demonstrate that it is a misconception to qnalify the restriction as one on the use of the machine, wdien, in truth, l)oth in form and substance it was a restriction upon the use of materials capable of being employed in operating the machine. The license agreement sustained by the Dick decision created no monopoly in unpatented things, for it left the whole world free to manufacture and sell paper and ink. It reserved to the patentee the sole right to supply specified unpatented ai-ticles to specified persons, but it did not prevent any other