The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-03-12
DECISION IS
EPOCH MAKING
r.
So. .'' e
Owner Of Patent Has Unre-
stricted Monopoly of
Articles Used.

Washington. March 1.-THE s,1-
prcine court today held that the owner
OF a patent has an unrestricted no
nopoly upon all articles used in its
operation. may fix its price and pre-
scribe it's use. and thereby laid down
the broad principle of doubtful APP
important antitrust suits now pend
ing which involve the question of pat
Ont rights. H.
The, court stool four to three. Chief
Justice 4W.hite.% with whom dissented
Justices Lamar and Hughes in a spir-
ted opinion, voices his dread of the
result Of the 'coNrt..s work. asking who
could foretell the extent of the mo.
nopoly and IN wrongful restrictions
a majority OF the court. the chief JUS
tice declared the patent law could
reach u and juclude within patent
every conceivable thing used in every
American household.
The chief Justice declared congress
should act to head off the untold
evils" which would follow the courts
the majority as having broken all
~prccedents. Court in its history, he
said" never failed to do its duty by
the whole people and stand as a pro-
,ector Of every household.
Justice Lurtor. who delivered the
majority. opinion,. was Joined by Jus
tices McKenna. Holmes and Vande-
vanter. Oficiais Of the department Of
justice arc not inclined to discuss the
courts decisioni.4or its application to
anti-trust. suits. Attorney General
Wickersham n Solicitor General
Lehman heard the. decision and re-
garded it as epoch making. Lehman
declined to make "a /. statement and
Wickersham wak unwilling.
During the last two years: the. de-
partment of Justice in its prosecutions
under the Sherman law. encountered
more and more the question of the
rights Of patentees.
--Some--ofiei.ls of the---departfaelat
predicted antitrust suits Of the future
would be fought along those lines.
That the question involved in the case
against the electrical trust. now settled
In favor of the government and some
officials think the same question might
be ~troduce In any antitrust suit
aaginst n industrial combination.
Because of the sweeping Importance
of the decision to the enforcement
OF the Sherman law it Is not improba-
bic a %rehearing may be asked to bring
the question before the full bench Of
Justices. Justice Day did not partic-
ipate. and a vacancy caused by the
death of Justice Harlan had not been
nlled though Chancellor Pitney of New
jersey has been nominated but not
confirmed by the senate.
foremost among the pending anti
trust suits which may now be affected.
arc those against the United Shoe Ma
ohinery company. the keystone Watch
company and the so-caIled Coaster
Brake trust. \ score or more inyesti.
cations now under way by the DEPART
ment of justice. in which corporations
are claiming rights of %patentees to
s Ger ,i,, monepoiies and restrictions
The department Of justice officials
believe. the decision may throw out
one feature of the case against the
keystone Watch company. relating to
re-sellfng prices. In the shoe ma
chinery company case in which ques-
tions of patent rights are involved, al
may strengthen some portions Of it's
defense by the decision, the depart.
ment of Justice regards those suits
considerably broader than the usual
antitrust suits involving patents be-
cause Of n governments allegations
of combination.
The case actually before the court
rotary mimeograph to bind the pur-
chaser Of each machine to use upon
1t only ink which he manufactured.
me question arose as to whether
the license restriction was governed
by the contract law over which the
states courts have jurisdiction or
whether it was controlled by the pat
ent law and thus within the jurisdic-
ton of the federal courts. The New
lions. e. ~
Several times the question has aris-
en- In federal circuit courts.
Most of them followed the leading
decision announced by Justice Lurton,
then circuit Judge. and known as "the
button fastener case" In that deci.
sion Lurton held it was governed by
me patent law and consequently valid.
Today he approved that decision.
Chief Justice White. gave illustra.
tons of what the effect OF the decision
might be. He declared that the court
said I" the patentee selling a patented
engine that .hettiaf .thesiIeht by con-
tIact. to. hiring under the patent laws
all contracts fotsscoal sorsSSitctricsl on,
eexY' used 10 A1of6 -rnNer to work the