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.
28
PART m.
National Harrow Co. v. Ilench (83 Fed., 36) was a decision by the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit. In that case the manufacturers of float spring tooth harrows assigned all their patents to the National Harrow Co., immediately taking out licenses to manufacture and sell at fixed prices. On an action to recover royalties, the court held the arrangement unlawful, stating (p. 38) :
Patents confer a monopoly as respects the property covered by them, but they confer no right upon the owners of several distinct patents to combine for the purpose of restraining competition and trade. Patented property does not differ in this respect from any other. The fact that one patentee may possess himself of several patents, and thus increase his monopoly, affords no support for an argument in favor of a combination by several distinct owners of such property to restrain manufacturers, control sales, and enhance prices. Such combinations are conspiracies against the public interests and abuses of patent privileges. The object of these privileges is to promote the public benefit, as well as to reward inventors. The suggestion tliat the contract is justified by the situation of the parties — their exposure to litigation — is entitled to no greater weight, l^itcntees may compose their differences, as the owners of other property may, but they can not make the occasion an excuse or cloak for the creation of monopolies to the public disadvantage.