Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1912-03-14
Supreme Court Lays Down Broad
Principle Of Doubtful Anti
Trust Application.
JUSTICES DIVIDE, 1 TO 8
Spirited Opinion Of Minority Asks
Who Can Foretell Extent of
Wrongful Restrictions
That May Arise.

n pateut has an unrestricted monopoly
upon all articles used in Its operation'
may fix It's price and prescribe It's use
mud thereby laid down broad principle
of doubtful application to many or the
governments important antitrust suits
now pending which involve questions OF
patent rights,
The court stood four to three. Chief
Justice White, with whom Gissented Jus
1icos Lamar and Hughes. In n spirited
opinion voiced his dread of the results
u the COURTS work, asking who could
ioretell the extent of monopoly and
wrongful restrictions which would arise.
As construed by the majority OF the
court. the chief justice declared the
patent law could reach out to include
within Il patent every conceivable thing
used In every American household
The chief justice declared that the
| congress should act to head off untold
Evils" which would follow the courts
| construction of the law and arraisned
the majority us having broken all prec-
,dcnts. The court in its history. he
taid. had never failed to do its duty to
the whole people and to stand as the
protector of every household
Justice Lurton. who delivered the
majority opinion, was Joined by JUS
tees McKenna, Holmes and Van De
Nanter.
AFFECTS ANTITRUST SUITS.
officials of the department of JUS
lice were not inclined to discuss the
curtis decision or Its application to
snti-trust suits Attorney General
Nickersham and Solicitor General
Lehman heard the decision and re-
Farded it as epoch-making. Neither
you'd make a statement
During the last two years the de-
rartment of justice. in its prosecutions
under the Sherman law, has encount-
bred more and more the question of
The rights of ,patentees. Some officials
Of the department have predicted that
the antitrust suits OF the future
would be fought along these lines.
That question was involved in the case
AGAINST the electrical trust. now set
tied in favor OF the government and
some officials think the same question
might be introduced in any antitrust
suit against any industrial combina-
tion.
Because OF the sweeping Importance
Of the decision to the enforcement OF
the Sherman law. II Is not improbable
that a rehearing may be asked for to
bring the question before full bench
of justices. Justice Day did not par
ticipate, and the vacancy caused by
the death OF Justice Harlan has not
been filled.
THREE SUITS NOW PENDING.
Foremost among the pending antitrust
suits which may now be affected. are
those against the United Shoe Machinery
company, the Keystone Watch company,
and the so-called coaster brake trust. A
score or more Of Investigations now under
way by the department Of justice. in
which corporations are claiming the rights
OF patentees to certain monopolies and re-
strictions are vitality affected
Department Of justice officials believe
the decision may throw out one feature
of the case against the keystone Watch
company relating TO re-selllng prices. In
the shoe machinery company case, In
which questions of patent rights are in
VOWED, although it is admitted the COM
pany may strengthen some portions Of
its defenses by the decision. the depart
ment Of Justice regards those suits as
considerable broader than the usual anti
trust suits involving patents because OF
the governments allegations Of combina-
lion.
The case actually before the court con.
oerned the right Of the patentee of a
rotary mimeoSraph to bind the purchaser
If each machine TO use upon It only ink
which he manufactured.
The question arose as to whether the
license restriction was governed by con-
tract law over which the State courts
lave Jurisdiction or whether il was con-
trolcd by the patent law and thus within
the jurisdiction Of the federal courts.
The Ncw York federal court asked for
Instructions.
FOLLOWED LURTON DECISION.
Several times the question had arisen
N the federal circuit courts Most OF
them had followed a leading decision an
nounced by Justice Lurton, then a circuit
judge, and known as the Button fast
fner case. In that decision Judge Lur-
ton held II was governed by patent law
md consequently aid, To-day he ap-
proved that decision.
IF a pateutee says" began Justice
Iurton in his opinion, !" I may suppress
my patent If | Will, may make or have
made devices under my patent but will
,ether sell nor permit any one to tho
patented things he Is within his right
and none can complain. But II
he says 4 will sell with tle
right 10 use only with other things
Jroper for using with the machines, and
J viii sell at the actual cost of machines
10 me providing you will agree to use
only such articles as made by me In
connection herewith. II he chooses to
take his profit in this way. instead of
taking It by the higher price for the
machines, has he exceeded his exclusive
right to make sell and use his patented
machines?
THE market for the sale OF such arti-
Cles to the users of his machines which
J.; such a condition he takes to himself
WAS a market which he alone created
hy the making ana the selling OF the
new invention. Had he kept his In
vention to himself no ink could have
been sold by others for use upon ma
chimes cmbodying that invention BY
selling IT subject to the restriction, he
took nothing from others and In no wise
restricted their legitimate market
one Of the express reasons given by
Junt,cc White for his dissent was to make
81 clear that If evils arise from the deci-
sion their continuation will not be
caused by tao Interpretation given to tho