New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-01-20
ABUSE OF PATENT LAW
Shall an Inventor Be Allowed to I'M
nose Restrictions on Use Of Article?

70 the Editor ~ The Tribune
Sir. IN your editorial Of December =
regarding the coming Supreme Court de
.lsiou an III" shoe machinery vase and III"
recent decision ia the mimeoSraph case
Won say. Roth Of these are patent
cases and hinge upon the 'ght OF the
p,t.ntee 10 attach conditions to tie use
~ patented article" That statement
hr,,,ss us ~ once ~ the root 81 the whole
matter ami the question immediately
arises Arc these really patent 'ases
Let us sec II will he conceded That IN"
original designer and maker of an aiucie
Is the sol. owner of SUCH article. MS
ownership Is absolute and supreme " h."
procuiss a patent on his device. Whd' Is
tho eject OF the patent" ObVousN' il can
neither enhance not aoriisc ms owner -
shin which vas and stil = absolute. IN"
patent simply prohibits others rom
making selling ct using Ga" patented AZ
,lrle without the consent Of the patente".
THAT ~ all The patent Coni"tS 30 new
risbt. n makes the existing right cNolu-
siye. and tho patentee may sell MS pat
cntad article OF not. rs ne chooses ih
thi. country there is 40 conpulsi"n NOW
We are told that the pa'ente" 81 the
mi,naosraph sells his machine with the
proviso. that Il shall be used only with
ink supplied hy himself and Tia" pa'ent""
of the shoe machine sells his ma'nlu'
with the prov!su that II shall he u''H
only IN conjunction with certain "the'
machines II the purchasers accept ines"
conditions and sign agreements 20 that
effect then the conditions ATE binding
lIpou the purchasers by virtue Of the
agreements ana i'm no sense because Of
,h. ontenta The patents have no reIa-
ton whatever 30 the conditions ana lh'
conditions are in no way essential To ne
use OF IA" machines.
ANY contention. Therefore. that Niola-
tiou ~ the conditions would b" an IN
Iriuecment Of the patents would have 10
foundation iu isct. and could not stand
Tor a moment. II is true. however. tAil
the patents may be- said tn BE- primaIl!
responsible fol the conditions because inc
monopoly established under III" patents
enables the patentees Ia exercise the
n,yer--we need not say the usht-to
.Nact the conditions And II - equally
true that II the monopoly had been &C
bv the patents. then such other means
would nave been just ~ responsible for
the abuse But the monopoly exists ana
is complete ThcS" cases then. are not
patent cases. In the ordinary acceptatlon
of the term-that is they DO not involv,
ANY question Of infringement of the pat
euts or any question of tn" Validity nf the
pafeutg hut the cases hinge upon the
question whether or not vendor of an
article upOn which hc holds a monopoly
however the monopoly may have been
acaulred-shall I've permitted 10 impose
arbitrary and altogether unreasonable
restrictions upon its use. Certainly IN"
trainers of Our patent laws never antIcl-
pated any such misuse Of the privileges
To be enjoyed under the patent system
and il would seem that there ought To he
a law which would prohibit such an abuse
with tn. penalty of an annuhnent of tho
patent for It's violation.
". X. bANDFEAR
Jersey Guy. y. J.. Jan. IL. 1919