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.
26
PAET m.
of his letters patent, but Mr. Justice Harlan said, page 505 :
We are of opinion that the right conferred upon the patentee and his assigns to use and vend the corporeal thing or article, brought into existence by the application of the patented discovery, must be exercised in subordination to the police regulations which the State established by the statute of 1874.
In Patterson v. Kentucky (supra) and Wehher V. Virginia (103 U. S., 344, 347) the exercise of the police power of a State in prohibiting the sale of patented articles was held not to be in conflict with the patent laws of Congress. If the State may prohibit altogether the sale of patented articles because of injury resulting from such sale to its citizens, it follows that the State may prohibit the sale of patented articles pursuant to combinations in restraint of intrastate trade and commerce, for such combinations are equally hannful to the public. In the one case the State is prohibiting any sale, in the other case it is merely reguhiting the sale of the patented article in so far as it declares that no such sale shall be made under any unlawful combination monopolizing or restraining intrastate commca-ce. In either case the State is exc^rcising its police power to protect its citizens; neither exercise of power conflicts with the patent laws. The reason is clear. The regulation of the State is being applied to natural rights and not to patent rights. The right to sell, a common-law right, is