The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-05-20
PATENTS AND PRICES.

in the mimeograph case that the owner
of patent can, under our present
patent laws control not only the
patent itself, but the appliances used
Herewith. The contention in that case
was that the patentee Of the mimeo-
| graph had a right to prescribe the use
of the ink for his machine, an ink
which he himself provided. He could,
of course, under the same contention
prepare paper of his own and require
the users of his machine to buy the
paper from him also. In like manner,
as pointed out at the time, the owner
of the patent electric transformer
could require that the wires used with
| his device should be of his own pro-
viding, and must be bought from him.
And so, any one inventing an advan-
tageous improvement on locomotives,
could require that the locomotives on
which his patent is used must be pur-
chased from him, that no locomotive
other than his own could use his de-
vice. And so it could go through the
whole series of necessary appliances
used in connection with the patent IT.
self.
Heretofore, it has been supposed that
the patentee Of any article or device
rested his claims entirely upon his in
vention, and not upon the appliances
in connection Herewith, unless he spe-
cially patented those appliances also.
But the Supreme Court decides other
wise, by the narrow vote referred to-,
and has declined TO reopen the case.
Chief Justice White of that court
came out in a vigorous public state
ment in opposition to the decision of
the four judges, he being one of the
three who dissented
By reason of the e1travapant ex-
clusiveness and extent of the monopoly
which patent would thus confer upon
an Inventor, there has been activity
In Congress to amend the laws so as to
conflne the benefits of the patent on
any device to the device itself, and
not to the ordinary connections there
with through which the device is used
Representative John A. Thayer of
Massachusetts,, prior to the decision
of the court, had introduced in the
House a bill designed to cure the op.
pressive state of things that would en-
sue by reason of the decision which
the Supreme Court made in this case;
and there has been considerable pub.
lie sentiment in favor of that bill
This has aroused contrary activi-
ty on behalf of patentees 1t is
claimed that the practical workings of
patents are often dependent on the
side appliances to be used in connec-
tion with them, and that the benefits
to the patentees should be enlarged
rather than diminished. To this it
may fairly be replied that anything
necessary in the use of the patented
device should itself be patented in order
to secure the benefits Of exclusive use
If, however, it is something that is
not subject to patent but has been in
common use, then there would seem to
be no reason why the patentee should
claim any exclusive benefit from it.
The contention is made, further, that
the patentee should have the right to
fix the price at which his article shall
be sold, both wholesale and retail, and
that his lawful right to sell or not to
sell his patent wares to whomsoever he
pleases must not be questioned. These
propositions, however, are subject to
limitation. First, it is necessary for
the patentee to fix a price which will
allow of the use Of his device, or he
cannot obtain any benefit from it;
and, second, if the patentee is on the
market with his device, he should
not be allowed to say that he will sell
to certain persons and not to others:
that would be restriction OF trade
which is expressly legislated against
and is utterly reprehensible; for, when
an article is in the market on sale, it
Is clearly the right of any purchaser
TO buy it, subject to such practical
and technical limitations as are usual
in like cases. The legislation against
restraint of trade is directly calcu-
lated to destroy monopolies such as pat.
entees or combinations might devise and
put into effect in restraint of trade and
IN the building up of oppressive monop-
olles through patent rights.
But those who are in favor of even
greater privileges for patentees than
they already have, contend that the
community should be the pillage ground
for the patentee, without restrictions;
and they have organized movement
against any restrictions such as Chief
Justice White so strongly favored. They
are working through their agencies all
over the country and through the agents
and users of patented devices of va
rious kinds, bringing pressure to bear
upon Senators and Representatives
against any change in the law as de.
clared by the Supreme Court. The bill
introduced by Representative William