United States of America v. Motion Picture Patents Company and others (1914)

Record Details:

Title:
United States of America v. Motion Picture Patents Company and others
Date:
1914
Publisher:
Washington, D.C. : United States. Government Printing Office
Volume:
United States of America v. Motion Picture Patents Company and others
Leaf #:
00031
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Books
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
December 21, 2023
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.

25 powers by which the health, good order, peace, and general welfare of the community are promoted. Whatever rights are secured to inventors must be enjoyed in subordination to this general authority of the State over all property within its limits. See also Patterson v. Kentucky, cited in our brief, pages 25-26. In the latter case the Supreme Court held that, in selling and distributing in commerce patented oil, the patentee was not exercising any rights conferred by the patent letters. In enacting the statute under consideration in the Patterson case, the Legislature of Kentucky had invoked the exercise of its police power. The subject matter affected happened to be a patented article. A law by the State of Kentucky prohibiting combinations in restraint of trade and prohibiting the selling of articles pursuant to combinations in restraint of trade is also an exercise of the police power of the State. If the policy of the State, as declared by its legislature, is that such combinations are against .the best interests of the people, it is not for the courts to question the policy of the legislature. It is clear that a State statute directed against combinations in restraint of trade would apply to patented articles exactly the same as to unpatented articles. If, under the Patterson decision, patented articles which are injurious to the public may not be distributed or sold, it is clear that patented articles may not be sold or distributed in a manner which the legislature deems injurious to the public.