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 #:
00035
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.

29 retailer of the patented article sold to the jobber by the patentee. The article having entered the channels of commerce is subject to the laws applicable to commerce in other articles. The fact that it is a patented article does not confer upon the original owner any peculiar property right which inheres in the article and enables him to control its resale. Therefore, as at common law, the fixing of a retail price of an article by the original owner is a restraint of trade, so in the case of a patented article the fixing of the retail price is a restraint of trade. If the patented article is to be considered the same as an unpatented article where the retail price is concerned, and if the fixing of the retail price is as unlawful in one case as in the other, so in other respects commerce in patented articles must conform to the law in the same way that the trade in unpatented articles must do so. The Sanatogen decision means more than that the fixing of a retail price on patented articles is a restraint of trade; it is an authority to the effect that wTherever in commerce a condition attached to the sale of an article is a restraint of trade it is also a restraint of trade when applied to the sale of a patented article. On principle it is a clear authority that after they have entered the channels of commerce patented and unpatented articles are governed by the same rules. But defendants stoutly and repeatedly assert that in the Sanatogen case the patentee had parted