The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1912-04-17
HI PATENT LAWS.

Congressman Hanna recently intro
duced a bill to amend the patent laws
so the holders of the patents could not
have an exclusive monopoly. Com
menting on the necessity Of some regu-
lation OF this kind The New York
Journal Of Commerce recently had the
following editorial:
1t is not at all surprising that the
supreme court has refused a rehearing
IN the Monograph patent case. There
were only seven judges on the bench
and they were divided, 4 to 3, but there
is no sufficient reason for expecting a
change after a repetition of the hear
ing before the full bench. There would
naturally be a reluctance to modify
q decision rendered under such cir
cumstances, and what is really needed
Is a change in the law. The court in
passing upon the case followed no
precedent Of it's own upon the point
OF law involved, but it upheld a series
Of decisions Of the lower courts which
had never been overruled, and avoided
the confusion that might be caused by
disturbing the result of those prec-
edents, which were cited at consid-
cradle length in the briefs and the
majority opinion. 1t was distinctly
animated that the law might be de-
f%ective, but that was for congress to
correct n not for the courts.
1t will be recalled that in this case
the m~imeograph was sold at a GER
tain price, with a license attached
which involved a contract or agree
ment of the purchaser that the ink,
paper and other material to be used
with 1T should only be that supplied
by the makers of the patented ma
chine. A person selling a different
ink to q purchaser of the machine, to
be used with ii. was prosecuted for
attempted infringement, though the
INK was not actually used and the
owner of the machine did not violate
h terms of the license. The patent
did not cover the material supplied
for the use of the machine by its
maker and that sold to the owner had
no direct relation to the patent, but il
was held that the mimeograph com
pany had the right to sell the patent
ed article with the restriction upon its
use and that could be enforced to the
extent Of supplying anybody who
sought to induce its violation to q
penalty for attempted infringement o.
the patent right. This seems to bt
stretching an exclusive control very
far, but 1t arose from a progressive
construction of the right of a patentet
to prescribe the terms upon which hi:
machine or device could be bought OF
used. 1t had been the result of a sue.
cession Of decisions which could no
well be revised.
That the law, as construed by tn,
courts for a long time. permits tn,
extension OF a patent monopoly Il
cover things which are not patented
b. are to be used with a machin,
that 10 patented, is by no means it,
only defect; and If this decision couI,
have been set aside and those in lin,
with it could have beer d~isregarde,
hereafter. 1t would have still left TIL,
law in need Of amendment Severa
bills have been introduced in ongres
for amending the revised statutes re
lating to patents, and this decision o
the supreme court and the refusal t,
reconsider 1t ought to spur it to action
before this session is over. Selling
patented machine on condition that i
shall only be used with materials SUP
piled by the patentee is not SO bad al
leasing 1t for use in a certain line d
manufacturing with a condition tina
the lessee shall not buy or use an,
machines in his business except thos,
supplied by the lessor. The Unite,
shoe Machinery plan Of controlling thl
entire equipment of factories in whicI
any eff It's patented machines are use,
practically extends its monopoly owe
the making Of shoes as well as the ma
chinery for making them. The patents
Win the terms OF the leasing system
put the whole industry at the mere.
of the machine monopoly. which ca
exact its w terms.
Cther well known abuses are TIL