Arizona republican., 1912-03-12
DIVIDED COURT
 DECIDES CASE
Monopolistic Patent Laws Are Upheld by the Su-
 preme Tribunal.
DECISION IS
 FAR REACHING
.ISSociatcd Press Dispatch l

WASHINGTON. March IA far reaching decision. upholding the right of patcntees to dictate absolutely how their patented articles shall be sold hy retailers. and declaring legal the inventors monopoly in his selling con tract. was made today by the United States supreme court. Chief Justice White and Justices Lamar and Hughes dissented Lurton announced the opinion of the majority Attorney General Wickersham said the decision is epoch making"
 In his dissent. Chief Justice White declared congress should do some thing to head off the untold evils" that follow today's construction of the present laws He said under the ruling the patent laws could be stretched so as to include in a patent every conceivable thing used in an American household. The chief justice arraigned the majority opinion as breaking all precedonts. the court, in its past history. never having failed to do it's duty to the whole people and to stand as the protector of every household" he said The majority opinion said the very object of the ratcnt law was to give monopoly to the patentee or inventor. and the fact that he continued such monopoly in contracts disposinG of his wares by charging such prices as he saw lit. is not illegal.
 If such a condition interfercs with public policy" said the opnon. con eress must change the patent laws"
 Chief Justice White said that now the patentee, whether the inventor or not. might become a patent law unto himself. mOnopolizing things not new or novel
 During the last two years the de partment of justice, in prosecutions under the sherman law. has encoun- tered more and more the question of the rights of patentees. Some off cials of the department have predict ed the antitrust suits of the future would be fought along those lines. Because of the sweeping importance of the decision it is improbable a re- hearing will be asked to bring the question before the full bench. Justice Day did not participate, and the va cancy caused by the death of Justice Harlan still exists A score or more prosecutions now under way by the department of justice in which cor pOrationS claiming certain mOnOpolies. are affected vitally. The case actually before the court concerned the right of the natentee of a rotary mimeo- graph to bind the purchaser of each machine to use only the ink he man ufacturcd. The question arose whether q license of restriction was governed by the contract law over which the state courts have jurisdiction. or by the ratent law thus within the juris- diction of the federal courts. The New York federal court asked for in structions.
 Several times the question has aris- en in the federal courts. Most Of them followed the leading decision announced by Justice Lurton. then circuit judge. known as the button fastener case" In that decision Lur- ton held the case was governed by the patent law Today he approved that decision. Chief Justice White
  of the decision might be. He declared the court said to patentee selling a patented engine. he had the right. by contract. to bring under the patent laws all contracts for coal electrical. and energy used to afford power to work the machine To the buyer of patented sewing machine. he de- ciared it said the patentee might re- quire all thread. needles. and oil used be bought from the patcntee.
 "The patentee of a cooking uten- sil," he continued might require all food cooked in it to he purchased from him. or the patentee of win dow frame might assert all material in the house in which the frame was to he used must be procured from him" Lurton. in his Opinion. referred to such instances as 'fanciful.'