The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-03-12
No Limit Can Be Placed
Under Supreme Court
Decision.
CHIEF JUSTICE
VOICES DISSENT
Criticizes Colleagues for Opinion
of Which No One Can Foretell
Outcome = Gives Patentee
Monopoly of All Articles
Used in Operation of
Invention.

/ Washiustou, March lI.-Thc SUI
prone Court to-day held that the
! owner of patent hus nu unrestricted
7 monopoly unou NIL articles used In it's
/ operation, may IN it's price and pre-
scribe Its use, md thereby laid down
II" brond principle of doubtful nppli-
cation to mnny of the govcrpmcut's
Important antitrust suits now pending
winch Involve questions of patent
! rights.
The cour. stood ito 9. Chief Lus-
; tice White, with whom dissented JUS
! tees Lamar and Hughes, In spirited
! opinion voiced his dread OF tho re-
suits of the courts work, asking who
could foretell The extent of monopoly
ana wrongful restrictions which would
a.isc AS construed by the majority
of the court. the Chief Justice de-
clared the patent law could reach out
| to include within Il patent every con
ce!vable thing used In every Amer.
lean household.
| says Congress should Act.
The Chief Justice declared ;hat Con
S-ess should act to head off untold
evils which would follow the courts
construction of the law, and arraigned
| the majority as having broken all pre-
cedents, The court in its history, he
,
ito the whole people ana TO stand as
the protector of every household.
/ Justice I.urton. who delivered the
majority opinion. was Joined by Jus
tees Slckcnna, Holmes and all De-
ranter.
! Officials of tho Department OF Jus
tice were not inclined to discuss the
courts decision or its application 20
antitrust suits. Attorney General
| WICK erShQnl and Solicit
Lehman heard the decision and re-
Sarded 1t as epoch making. Mr.. Leh-
mann declined to make a statement
and Attorney General Wickersham
was unwilling.
During the last two years, the De-
partment OF Justice. in it's prosccu-
lions under the sherman law, has en-
countered more and more the question
OF the rights OF patentecs. Some otii-
Gals Of the department have predicted
that the antitrust suits of the
future would bc fought along those
I lines. That question was involved in
the case against the electrical trust,
now settled in favor of the govern
ment, and some officials think the Same
question might be introduced in any
antitrust suit against any Industrial
combination.
Because of the sweeping Importance
OF the decision TO the en-
forcement of the Sherman law.
il is not improbable that a re-
hearing may he asked for to bring the
quest on before a full bench OF Jus
tees Justice Day did not participate,
and the vacancy caused by the death
OF Justice Harlan has not been Tiled,
! though Chancellor Pitney, OF New Jer-
soy, has been nominated, but not CON
firmed by the Senate.
Suits May nc Affected
, trust suits which may now be affected
! are those against the United Shoe Ma
! chinery Company. the Keystone Watch
/ Company and the So-callcd Coaster
/! Brake Trust a score or more OF in
vestlgations now Under way by the
Department of Justice, In which cor
porations are claiming the rights Of
patentees to certain monopolies and
restrictions, are vitality affected.
4 Department of Justice officials be-
licve the decision may throw out one
feature OF the case against the Key
stone Watch Company. relating to re-
( selling prices. In the shoe machinery
| company case, in which questions II
| patent rights are involved, although
lit admitted the company may
F., rcnSthcn some portions OF its de-
lenses by the decision, the Department
of Justice regards those suits as con
siderably broader than the usual anti
trust suits involving patents. because
of the governments allegations of
combination.
/ The case actually before the court
concerned the right Of the patcntce
OF a rotary mimcograph to bind tho
purchaser of each machine to use
upon i; only ink which he manutac-
turcd. The question arose as to
whether the license restriction WAS
/, governed by contract law over which
the state courts have jurisdiction, or
! whether it was controlled by the patent
law. and thus within the jurisdiction
OF the Federal courts. The New York
Federal court asked for Instructions
Several times the question has
arisen In the Federal Circuit Courts
Most of them he'd followed u leading
decision announced by Justice Lurton
then q circuit Judge, and known as
the button fastener case" In that
decis on Judge Lurton held il was gov
crncd by patent law and consequently
valid. To-day he approved that de-
olson.
One Of The express reasons given by
Chief Justice White for his dissent was
to make it clear that IL evils arise
from tho decision Their continuation
VIII not he caused ny the intcrprctu.
ton given to the statute. but Will re-
suit from the inaction Of the Legislative
department In falling TO amend ths
statute so as TO avoid sucn evils. The
amendment would be some restriction
on the use OF a patent.
Court is Criticized.
| Chief Justice White first contended
that the license restriction" was n
collateral contract relation and critic
lied the court for ''unwarrantcdly eN.
tending tho Federal judicial rower
over 1t.
''fhc ruling now made" said ne. ''in
attest 10 thnt hn nnicni o. hnS