Court Opinion

ID: 3618319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 00:00:51.874843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:42:49.565105
License: Public Domain

I think this judgment should be affirmed and that we should adhere to our previous decision in this case. We should not, upon the present appeal, entertain the question of the correctness of the propositions decided; but we should take them as declarations of the law, pronounced by the court after due deliberation, and conclusive in the action. The question of the extent, to which the rights conferred by the copyright statutes may be protected by contract, is still an open one in the United States Supreme Court. The case of Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus,
(210 U.S. 339), differs in the important fact that there was no such contract, as was in question here. The claim for protection, there, rested upon a printed notice in the book fixing its price at retail.
The object of copyright and of patent statutes is to give monopolies and that contracts made by the owners of copyrights, to secure the fullest protection in the enjoyment of the monopoly, will not be condemned by the courts, for being in unlawful restraint of trade, we have decided. Until the United States Supreme Court has pronounced differently upon such an agreement concerning the future sales of copyrighted *Page 499 
books, as is now in question, our former decision stands as the law of the case; however it may be argued that in some other action the decision of the Federal tribunal warrants a different inference as to the interpretation to be given to the copyright statute.