The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-11-25
UNSETTLED PROPOSITIONS.

UNSETTLED PROPOSITIONS.
Two patent eases have recently been |
decided by tho L. S. Supreme Court
which seem very much alike, but in
which the court saw material differ |
ence. The FIRST was the mimcograph
case. in which the patentce claimed the
right 10 sell his little machine accom-
panied with contract that the buyer
must use the paper and ink which the
patcntcc had for sale. and no other.
The paper and ink were not patented,
but tho patcutce held that the success
full use Of the machine depended in ap-
preciable degree upon the kind aud
quality of the paper aud ink used with
it, and that these were specially manu-
factured for such use, though not pat
ented, Further, the plea was that the
patentce derived his chief profit on the
sale of these supplies, since he had put
the price of the machine low TO induce
its purchase on condition of using these
materials. On these representations tho
court upheld the plea of the patentec.
II VIII no IIhh'lHDCISu ludl Sultl DuS-
ticc White issued an open statement
in remonstrance, arguing that the mo-
nopoly thus created was contrary TO the
Sherman antitrust law The Chief jus
tice was ia tho minority Of the court
but his plea against the decision was
very generally held to bo sound.
In deciding the bath tub case against
the bath tub combination, it appears
that Chief Justice White S contention
has been virtually approved by the
court, The line of demarkation be-
tween the two cases being perceptiblc
TO be sure, but hardly, as layman
might suppose, SO controlling as under
ordinary circumstances to call for diff
ferent decision in the bath tub case
from that in the mimeograph case, Tho
conditions in the bath tub case are that
a combination was effected by manufac,
turers Of enameled ware. controlling
about 90 per cent Of the business, for
using certain patented implements for
applying the enamel, which greatly
cheapcued the process, the patents being
held by common agent who arranged
the combination. The arrangement in
cluded manufacturers and wholesale
jobbers in the wares who agreed to sell
these at uniform prices, fixed by a com.
mittce y royalty was charged to man
ufacturcrs for the use of tho patented
appliances, which were required to bear
certain labels Penalties were provided
for violation of the license agreements,
under which the right TO sell could be
denied to any jobber or retailer of the
wares who failed to comply with the
conditions aud there was a rebate Of
royalties to those who faithfully OBJ.
served them. Sixteen corporations aud
thirty-four individuals were in the com.
bination and these were made defend
ants in the Government suit II was
proved that the trade in enameled ware
of the kind manufactured by the use
Of the patented devices, was practically
controlled by the combination, territory
being divided among its members for
marketing it and prices being main
tanned The combination was practi-
caIly suspended by the decree of the
| Circuit Court at Baltimore about two
years ago, aud it is said that prices Of
| the products have fallen from % to 10
per cent since, aud yet the business has
been actively continued on a profitable
| basis.
1t is clear ease that the bath tub
| combination was restraint Of trade
contrary TO law, and yet. as Chief jus
ticc White argued in his rcmonstraDcc
| against the mimeograph case, 4 danger
Gus monopoly is created, and the same
| reasoning might apply in both cases.
A comment IN support Of the bath tub
| decision is found in the New York Jour
| nal of Commerce and Commercial Bulle
tin, lin which we find the above sum.
mary of tho casc,) which is sOuud and
apt, as follows 'Tbe attempt to
evade tho law and establish monopoly
and restraint of trade in this way Is
mauifestly gross abuse Of the privi-
! lego granted by the Government for the
protection Of an exclusive right TO a
discovery or invention. The law it,
self as heretofore construed. has given
liberal extension TO this privilege, but
il has not goue so far as to enable bold
ers of patents to monopoizc trade in
whatever is manufactured with the help
Of the patented articles, Patents on tex.
| tile machinery Will not enable the users
TO combine 10 control the sale and price
of goods made by it's use. just where
the line is TO be finally drawn is not yet
clearly established, and the suit against
the Shoe Machinery Company may
bring another important decision, The
chief need is to have the limit Of patent
rights distinctly defined in tho statutes
instead of leaving so mach to be dc.
cidcd by litigation and the courts
From all of which 1T appears that the
particular bearing Of the patent laws