Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and brief in support thereof (1916)

Page scan 00021 from Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and brief in support thereof

Record Details:

Title:
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and brief in support thereof
Date:
1916
Publisher:
New York : Press of Fremont Payne
Volume:
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and brief in support thereof
Leaf #:
00021
Language:
English
Collection:
Books and Government & Law
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
June 20, 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.

15 Exhibit A. Dec. 31, 1915. C. M. HOUGH, U. S. D. J. 43 The substance of the error said to have been committed is a failure to distinguish between the property in a corporeal thing, eg. a patented machine, and that incorporeal hereditament which is the use of the aforesaid corporeal substance, or the machine. That error (in the sense of belonging to the minority) may have been committed herein is quite likely, but the point has not been overlooked. It remains my opinion : (1) That «uch attempted severance between corporeal and incorporeal property cannot be law "* fully maintained under the patent law^s, — nor asserted in an action on the patent, — whatever may be the ultimate limit of permitted contractual arrangements; and also (2) That the attempted reservation or severance here shown is specifically bad in that it attempts not only to confine the use of a machine once sold and delivered to a particular kind of film, but further seeks to render that use subject to any and every restriction or regulation which the patent owner may from time to time choose to make or vary. 45 The reargument is denied and decree signed.