New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-05-27
CLOAK OF PATENT LAW
STRIPPED FROM TRUSTS
Supreme Court Rules Protected
Articles May Be RetalIed
at Cut Rates.
DECISION IS FARREACHING
Many Monopolies Had Claimed
Legality-Policy in the
Monograph Case"
Reversed

Washington MAY 26.-The so-cslled
patent monopoly" which threatened to
prevent retailers from making cut rates
on all patented articles on the market,
was destroyed to-day by decision Of the
Supreme Court, which held that owners
of patents were not given the right by
the patent law to control the price at
which retailers must sell to consumers.
The courts decision was five TO four,
with Justices McKenna. Holmes, Lurton
and Van Devanter dissenting. Justice
Day announced the majority decision,
which held that while the patent law
gave the owner exclusive right 10 "vend'
articles. that was not the same a. right
TO keep up the price That. the court
held. was not granted by the patent law.
The decision in words applied only 10
nerve tonic for which patent had been
issued but il will control all patented
articles. hundreds Of which are being sold
under restrictions on the retailer not 10
resell at cut rates. Many manufacturers
had joined the manufacturer Of the nerve
tonic in his fight to sustain the conten-
ton that his patent gave him right 10
sell on use his patented article under any
conditions as to resale price he might see
it TO impose. All decisions I'm tho lower
! courts with the exception OF one have
been in favor OF the manufacturers
Reversed Own Policy.
The court reversed the policy adopted
BY il in the famous "mimeograph case"
decided little more than year ago.
m lC
bench. but allowed that case 70 stand so
far as it went. Thus was accomplished
what has been unsucccssfully sought in
Congress ever since the "mlmeograph
case was decided.
In the "mimeoeraph case Justices Nc
Konna. Lurton, Holmes and Van De-
vanter upheld the tight ~ patent owners
20 place restrictions on the nature Of ar
ticles 10 be used I'm connection with tho
patented article sold chief Justice White
and Justices Hughes and Lamar dissent
ed. To-day Justice Day who vas absent
year ago from the court. and Justice
Pitney, appointed since then. Joined with
the Chief Justice and Justices Hughes
and Lamar IN overruhng the policy ad-
vocated by the four justices VINO handed
down the courts decision in the "mimeo-
graph case
Justice Day announced tn decision Of
the majority members. The four minority
justices contented themselves with a mere
statement that they dissented. Justice
Day stated that the manufacturers relied
chiefly on the "mimeograph case" An
examination Of the opinion OF the court
in that case, he said, showed that the
restriction was sustained because the ma
chine was sold At cost or less. and that
the owner depended upon the profit real
lied from the sale OF unpatentcd supplies
10 be used upon the machine for reward
for his invention. No such conditions eA-
listed he added. in the present case.
In a further attempt 10 distinguish the
two cases the justice said that the re-
striction in the "mimeosraph case was
in regard TO the use Of the machine. and
only a qualified ute TO the patented
article passed I'm the present case. nc
pointed out. the restriction was 10 keep
up the price" the sale to the retailer
| having been absolute.