Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1918-05-03
TO SET ASIDE
Continued from Page One)

sent by the International News Ser
vice to its offices in this country re-
garding the torpedoing of the Brit
ish battleship Audacious and the
nava, battle off Jutland and because
of headlines printed in one newspa-
per receiving the Hearst Service de-
scribing London as being in flames.
| Samue. Untermyer of New York.
making the principal argument in the
! Supreme court today for the Interna-
tional News Service. in opposition to
injunctions obtained by the Associat-
ed Press to prevent the International
| from pirating its news dispatches,
declared that the case never had been
tried on its merits and denied that
any element of unfair competition
was involved. He summarized the
questions involved as follows:
lis there a right of property
I in news or knowledge of the news
! that will survive its publication by
I the gatherer in any of the newspa
perS to which it has been delivered
! for the express purpose of publica-
ton and sale until the gatherer of
+
! have secured their reward: or does
/ this news become public property as
soon as it has been published by any
! of the papers to which il has been
surrendered without restriction for
that specific purpose? In other
words. is there a sanctity of proper
/ ty right reserved 10 the news gath
erer against the effects of publica-
tion as to matter that is admittedly
uncopyrightable greater than that
given by the statute to copyrighted
mattero
"a ssuming that the court would
create a precedent in a case where
it would be necessary to preserve a
business against piracy in this case.
| both parties and their respective
members and customers have appar-
emily from the time of their organ
| ization acted upon the exactly oppo-
site construction and understanding
Of the law. News displayed on bulle-
| tins and printed and sold in early
editions of newspapers has been re-
garded as public property, which it
! is in law and in fact. Each of these
parties has freely taken the others
news and they are bound by that
pra ctical construction of their rights
and obligations. The fact that one Of
| them claims that it verifieS and re-
writes the story it takes from the
other, whilst the other Goes not, is
purely question of business policy
that in no wise affects their legal
~, II ina h,r
continued acts.
| "3-There can be no remedy in law
or equity unless actual damage is
shown. The complainant says it is
not organized for pr oft and that it
makes no money difference to it what
is the financial outcome of it's actiyi-
ties. That being so if there are any
remedies they are inherent in the
members and not in the corporation.
which is organized on the grotesque
theory that it is not engaged in bus
| mess.
| "4-The attempt by this order to pro-
tect compliments members in their To-
| cal news in suit to which they are
not parties and in which the Judgment
could not therefore, be binding or re-
Ciprocal. is without precedent or reason.
| '5-There is no element of unfair
competition involved. The defendant IS
not seeking to palm off compliments
news as its defendants news nor as
compliments news. but simply as news
| that has been made available to every
one. 1t has not secured ii surreptitious-
| ly or as the result of a breach of con-
4 trho tN,,, 1io1,r
paper containing it in which it was au-
thorized TO he published.
''6-Both the parties are in the posi-
! ton. with respect to news that has been
! published. of the man with an unpa-
| tentabIe idea or trade secret that has
cost him years of labor and vast sums
| of money to develop. SO long as he
keeps these things to himself he will
be protected against their surreptitious
taking. When he releases them they
| belong to the public.
| What the complainant is here irving
to do is to release the news and at the
| same time hold onto it, That is i'm
possible and in this case il is ineoJit
able. for in the past it has been taken
from the defendant and now that events
rave temporarily changed, il seeks to
! escape from the consequences of its
own action.
There is a manifest inconsistency
IN the attitude of this district court when
u very properly declined TO differentiate
between tips and 're-writes,' decided
mat the practice was universal in the
newspaper trade and vet enioiDed he
defendant from continuing Il on condi-
ton that the complainant would submit
To like injunction which the latter
was of course, delighted to do at that
particular iuncture
S-This decision sets up a new and
dangerous rule The measure OF a
plaintiffs right is now made dependent.
not on the extent to which the defend
ant has infringed a definite known ruIe
or law but upon an intangible unknown
| element that depends upon the extent
OF the activities of the plaintiff and
those whom it happened at the moment
} represent"
Tortoises in tropical islands re-
dulre much fresh water for drinking