Arizona republican., 1917-06-22

Urine of property in news to the time aurIng which il remains locked up in the breast of it's gatherer, to interpret the decisions cited as meaning only that news is like a trade secret lost when divulged in the course of business But news is far more than trade se cret, for that must remain private to have it's best value, while news is ob- tained for publicity a,.,ue. Iile true lIne of decision is indicated by the con- clrsion of the court in the Christie case-that the information will not be- come public property until the plaintiff has gained his reward. Of course this means his reasonable reward and as in frat instance of trade quotations: di- vulging the same to one patrons office full of customers. did not reasonably terminate plaintiffs property; so here it is reasonable and just that each member of plaintiff, and plaintiff it. self, has a property right in its own news until the reasonable reward or each member is received, and that means, (with due allowance for the earth's rotation) until plaintiffs most western member has enjoyed his re- ward; which is, not to have his local competitor supplied in time for com petition with what he has paid for. Surely this is a modest limit of rights
 But the foregoing is thought to be avoided, if not cOntrOVerted, by dwelling on the publication, and insisting in substance that when (e g) a single New York paper (being a member of plain tiff prints an item and se;is a copy of that edition, all the world can copy as it pleases, to any extent and for an! .,i, tIa la cause nothing but copyright protects that paper. and copyright does not cover statements of facts but merely their literary dress or form.
 The argument assumes that what plaintiff is interested in, and is trying to preserve, is literary property or anys thing capable of copyright protection It may be granted that the newspaper first giving out the news in question is ] copyrighted, that fact statements are not thereby protected as such, and that publication at common law terminated an authors rights in his manuscript and the fruits of his brain; yet it still remains true that plaintiffs property ir news is not literary at all, that it is not capable of copyright, and that 'publi- cation as that word is used in the long i line of decisions regarding literary [ I this case No one before ever attrib- uted to publication a sense that woulc i limit lawful business to a few degrees of longitude.
 | We have assumed the newspaper first printing TO be copyrighted and no , doubt it's publication of it's early edi | tion was general publications; but il could not copyright. abandon nor de- stroy what it did not own: and it diC not own plaintiffs property in the news, nor that of it's own fellow mem- bers in California. It did own the righ, to print in New York, but we discover no magic in the word publication which takes away or terminates the rights of others.
 Plaintiffs purpose in furnishing the (e g New York paper with news was to have a use made for it, not incon- sistent with it's own reasonable reward for it's labor from it's property and that of all the other members of plaintiff
 That measure of use and reward is lawful defendant deprives plaintiff
 thereof, and can show no equities
 therefore, defendant should be en-
 joined
 If defendant takes what some ont
 else owns and sells it as of right, 1T
 rivalry with the owner, s.c-: competi-
 tion is more than unfair-is patiently unlawful But laying aside the righ
 of property as the ultimate foundation
 of suit, the business method of selling
 in competition with plaintiff and it:
 members, something falsely represented as gathered by defendant otherwis, than from bulletins and early editions
 is unfair, because it is parasitic and un
 true. It is immoral, and that is usual!, , unfair to some one.
 ITO commercially distribute new! not gathered by the sender, is under th'
 facts shown here an invasion of prop
 erty rights; to send out as ones owl
 labor is marked by that doius, which | fraud, and that is the basis of the doc
 Urine of unfair competition in it's wid
 sense.
 Since, (to summarize the matter
 any bodily taking for sale of plaintiff news, without other labor than the per
 cep:ion thereof before the reasonabl,
 reward of industry was secured a.
 above indicated, was an unlawful in
 vasion of property rights; and any sal'
 thereof in competition with plaintiff
 under pretense of individual gathering
 thereof was a tort of the nature of un
 fair competition. the plaintiffs motior
 for injunction should have been grantee substantially as made.
 "The order appealed from is nodifie,
 as indicated, and the cause remandet . with directions o issue injunction
 against any bodily taking of the word
 or substance of plaintiffs news. unti it's commercial value as news las in th
 opinion of the district court passe'
 away"
 WIFE "STEALER" SLAIN