The Birmingham age-herald., 1912-03-12
Sweeping Ruling From Divided Bench of the
 Supreme Court
DECISION AFFECTS
 ANTITRUST SUITS
Chief Justice White Sees Great Harm Resulting From Decree-Depart- ment of Justice Regard De-
 cision as Epoch Making

Washington. March 1.-The supreme court today held that the owner of patent rhas an unrestricted monopoly upon all articles used in it's operation, may fix it's price and prescribe is use and thereby establish q broad principle of doubtful applications to many of the government important antitrust suits now pending which involve dues- tion of patent rights.
 The court stood four to three. Chief Justice White, with whom dissented Jus tices Lamar and Hughes, in a spirited opinion, voiced his dread of the results of the courts decision asking who could forete1l the extent of monopoly and wrongful restrictions which would arise As construed by majority of the court the chief justice declared the patent law could reach out to include within patent every conceivable thing used In every American household. ,.+.4ss. Congress Should Act
 The chief justice said Congress should act to head off untold evils which would follow tho courts construction of the law and arralgned the majority as having broken all precedents. Ths court in it's history. he said, had never failed to do its duty to the whole peo- pie and to stand as the protector of every household.
 Justice Lurton, who delivered the ma iority opinion, was joined by jus tices McKenna. Holmes and Vandevan- ter.
 Officials of the department of jus tlce were not inclined To discuss the decision of It's application to antitrust suits
 Attorney General Wlckersham and Solicitor General Lehman heard it read and regarded 1t as epoch making. Neil ther made a statement.
 Immense Question Involved
 In theylast two years the department of justice in its prosecutions based upon the sherman law has encountered moro and more the questions of the rights of patentees Some officials of the de- purtment have predicted that the anti- trust suits of the future will he fought lelcng those Jfnes trtfAt question was i Involved in t4tbsase agaiIat 3he elee. | trioal trust now settled in favor of | the government and some officials think the same question mignt be introduced in any antitrust suit against any in- dustrial combination.
 Because of the sweeping importance of the decision to the enforcement of the sherman law 1t Is not improbable rehearing may be asked to bring the question before a full bench. Justice Day did not participate and the vacancy caused by the death of Justice Har- Ian has not been filled, though Chan cellor Pitney of New Jersey has been nominated but not confirmed by the Senate.
 Foremost among the pending anti-trust suits which may be affected are those against the United Shoe Machinery com7 pany, the Keystone Watch company and the so-called coaster brake trust. A score or moro of investigations now under way by the department of justice in which corporations arc claiming the rights of pantentees to certain monopolies and restrictions are vitally affected.
 Effect of Decision
 Department of justice officials believe the decision may throw out one feature of the case against the Keystone Watch company, relating to reselllng prices. In the shoe machinery company case in which the questions of patent rights arc involved. although it is admitted the com pany may strengthen some portion of it's defense by the decision the department of Justice regards these suits as con- sideraby broader than the usual anti trust suits involving patents because or the governments allegation or compi- nation.
 The case actually before the court con- cerned the right of the patentee of A miin- eograph to bind the purchaser of eacn machine to use on 1t only ink which he manufactured
 The question arose as to whether tho
 license restriction was governed py con- tract law over which the state courts have jurisdiction or whether 1t was controlled by the patent laws and thus within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The New York federal court asked for instruc- tions.
 Several times the question has arisen in the federal circuit courts. Most of them had followed q leading decision an nounced by Justice Lurton, then a circuit judge. and known as "the button fastener case" In that decision Judge Lurton held 1t was governed by patent laws and con sequently valid. Today he approved that decision.
 Justice Lurton's Opinion
 'If a patentee says" began Justice Lur- ton in his opinion, !" I may suppress my patent if will, I may make or have made devices under my patent. but will neither sell nor permit anyone to use the patented things he Is within his rights and none can complain. But if he saysi T Will sell with the right to use only with other things proper for using with the machines and I will sell at the actual cost of ma chimes to me providing you will agree to use only such articles as made by me fin connection herewith if he chooses to take his profits in this way, instead or talk ing 1t by the higher price of the ma chimes. he has not exceeded his exclusive right to make, sell and use his patented machines.
 .sThe market for the sale of such art icIes to the users of his machines, which by such a condition he takes to him self. was a market which he alone created by the making and selling of the new in- vontions. Had he kept his invention to himself no ink could have been sold by others for usa on machines embcdying that invention. By selling 1t subject to restriction he took nothing from others and fin no wise restricted their legitimate market.
 Chief Justice White Dissents One of the express reasons given by Chief Justice White for his dessent was to make 1t clear that if evils arise from the decision "their continuation will not be caused by the interpretation given to the statute, but will result from the in- action of the legislative department in falling to amend the statute so as to avoid such eyils.'
 This amendment would be some restric- tion on the use of a patent.
 Chief Justice White first contended that <,<,fIo ot,ro