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 #:
00039
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.

PART iir. 27 (Iciiicd l)y the State in the one case and rci^iilatcd in the otiici-, the State aetini;* in each ease tor the i^ood of tlie ])nhlie. In j)assini; the so-ealled antitrust statutes ^'ongress and a State legislative body aet under different soiirees of power, but in each case the exercise of the power arri\'es at the same result, namely, l)rohibition of restraints of trade and of monopolies. The effect of the State act and of tlie Sherman Act is the same; tliat is, the two acts relate to and operate upon tlie same subject matter, although one is enacted under the police power of the State and the other under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. If the exercise of the police power of the State does not encroach upon the domain of the patent laws, how can it be said that to include within the operation of the Sherman Act combinations restraining trade is to subtract from the monopoh^ of the patentee ? Suppression of competition is merely one form of illegal restraint. If patents may not be used to accomplish a suppression of competition, it is equally clear that patents may not be used to accomplish other unlawful restraints. In other words, a decision that competition can not be suppressed through the use of patent licenses is a decision to the effect that patents may not be used to accomplish other means of restraint, for suppression of comi^etition is only one fonn of illegal restraint.