Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1878-01-16
WATERFOWL, WIS.
The COcllrane Patents.

InG O0cNTdHe TdtCntss
SOME one has sent us a copy of the
argument of George Harding of Phila.,
before the supreme court, ona motion
to set aside a former decree IN the
case of the Middlings Purifier Company.
Below will be found the opinion of the
court. While it declines to set aside
the decree as between the parties to it,
it expressly says that the case was not
properly presented before it and should
not be allowed to prejudice any other
party. This, as we understand, was all
the millers desired. All there was for
the Washington ring of conspirators to
stand upon, was this supreme court de-
cision, and now that that is taken from
them, they are left in very unenvlable
position. We are glad that the supreme
court has seen its error, and retraced
its steps. The case is a very remarka-
BILE one, and shows more clearly than
ANYTHING that has ever gone before, the
necessity of some radical changes in
our patent laws. Here was decision
obtained in the supreme court OF per-
haps the greatest importance, and most
far-reaching in its consequences OF any
ever before that court, now proved and
confessed to have been obtained in a
case every imperfectly presented"
which imperfect presentation the court
say is " demonstrated to have been
IN consequence of q conditional arrange
n,ent Nth the appellants, secured before the
ARRANGEMENT auas had That conditional
arrangement was, that the parties de-
PENDANT should have license for a NOM
inal sum in case decree was entered
up against them, and they really had
no interest in going to the expense and
trouble of defending it. We congratu-
late the consumers and producers of
bread, that this fraud has come to such
a speedy and disgraceful end.
The following is the opinion of the
court in the case;
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
OPINION OF THE COURT DEL vERED BY Mr.. JUSTICE
BRADLEY.
After careful examination of the
evidence adduced on the motion to va
cate the decree in this case, we see no
ground to believe that the appellants
are chargeable with any collision with
the appellees in reference to the argu-
ment of the appeal. On the contrary,
the weight of the evidence is, that they
repealed any arrangement or prOpO-
sitlOn which might look to that end.
Whilst we would not hesitate to set
aside decree collusively obtained, the
proof ought to be very clear to induce
us to do this at the instance of strangers
to the suit, though incidentally affected
by the decision of the questions lnvolv-
ed.
At the same time, as the decision IN this
case IS made tie basis Of applications for
injunctions against third parties in the
Circuit Court. it is right that We should
say, that in the argument of the appeal
before us, the case on the part Of the
appellees, aUas, as 1t seemed to us, ue1y an
perfectly presented; and the evidence laid
before us on this motion demonstrates
the fact that the appellees, an consequence
Of the conditional arrangement nth the APP
pella7as, Uhich they searched before the argu
nae,at 1gas had, or for some other cause.
omitted to prosecute their defense Nth that
degree of zeal and efficiency achich the I'M
portdnee Of the case auouM otherwise haze
demanded. The result was, that the
labor of the court, and its liability to
overlook points of weight and impor-
lance, were greatly increased AS the
case was presented to us, we see no
cause for changing our views. But UNI
der the circumstances ne think that THIRD
parties, aoho had no opportunity Of being
heard, and aohose Interests as opposed to the
Coctraae patents, are very important, should
not be concluded from having q further hear
ing upon 1T auheneuer future case may be
presented for our consideration.
The motion is denied with costs.
True copy