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.

I 'A HI Mil. 291 ])('liti(»ll ill llic sale llicl-cof ;it r('t;iil, ;m(l i.ssiK'd c'Ut-(>IT lists, so called, dirccliii^ tlir discuntiuiiancc i)f the sale ol' copyrinlitcd hooks to olTcndcrs, and i that the plaiiitilTs in error, who had fail('(l main j tain net jM'iees u})on copx ri«;*hte(l hooks, liad hecn put U])()n the eut-off lists and were unahlo to socnvo a supply of such hooks in the ordinary eoni'se of j business. It further apjx'ars that in some instances deak'rs who had su])plie(l the plaintiff's in error were wholly ruined and driven out (d' business; " that the Booksellers' Association widely circulated ! the names of such dealers and warned others to 1 avoid their fate, and that various circulars were issued to th(^ trade at large hy both associations warning all ])ersons against dealing with the ])lain in error or other so-called price cutters. I Referring to the decision of the court in Bohhs \ Merrill Co. v. Strauss (210 F. S., 339), :\Ir. Justice ] Day said : ' (234) This court, in the case of BohhsMerrill Co. v. Straus (supra), held that the copyright act did not grant the right to tix a limitation upon prices of books at subsequent sales to purchasers from retailers by notice of price limitation inscribed upon the book, and, construing the copyright act, held that in conferring the right to vend a j book it did not intend to confer upon the ' holder of th(^ coi)y right any further right ^ after he had (^xercised the right to vend ' smired to him by the act. (12) Easter)) States Betail Lu))ther Dealers' Asso j ciatio)i V. U)iited States (234 U. S., 600). De I cided June 22, 1914. Opinion by Mr. Justice Day. I