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 #:
00036
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.

24 PAET III. persons manufacturing and distributing those unpatented articles generally to all except to those who had bought the patented mimeograph. It gave to no one control over the source of supply of the unpatented articles or over the demand for those articles, except in respect to the person who bought the patented mimeograph. As to him only was the market curtailed and the demand controlled. Moreover, in the Dick case the condition had been imposed by one manufacturer in distributing his product. In the case at bar the restrictions were arrived at by a combination of competing manufacturers in order to suppress competition between themselves. We contend that the patent laws and the Sherman law are not conflicting, l)ut in their respective domains are mutually exclusive of each other. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts said in a recent opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Rugg {United States Shoe Machinery Com})a)iij v. La Chappelh\ 99 N. E., 289) : No word or phrase in the Sherman Antitrust Act reveals an intent to exempt the owners of patents from its sweeping provisions against monopolistic combination. An analysis of the nature of the right conferred by the patent franchise makes this clear. The right conferred by the patent laws is not the right to make, use, and vend the thing patented, for this right exists by virtue of the connnon law