|
|
Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 243 U.S. 490 (1917)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 243 U.S. 490 (1917)
Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Company No. 374 Argued January 12, 1917 Decided April 9, 1917 243 U.S. 490
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Syllabus
The monopoly of use granted by the patent law cannot be made a means of controlling the prices of the patented articles after they have been, in reality even though not in form, sold and paid for.
An attempt by means of "license contracts" with dealers and "license notices" attached to patented. machines to retain title in the manufacturer and patent owner until the expiration of the latest patent referred to in such notice, and to limit until the expiration of such period the right of the public to a mere license to use, dependent upon observance of conditions in the "license notices," including conditions as to price, will not be regarded as a legitimate exercise of the patent owner’s control over the use where, plainly, from the terms of the "license notices" and from the relations established between the patent owner and the dealers through whom the machines are distributed, the object of such reservations and restrictions is to enable the patent owner to fix and maintain the prices at which the machines may be disposed of after they have passed from its possession into the possession of the dealers and the public and after it has received from the dealers the full price which it asks or expects for the machines.
In such case, as to purchasers not in privity with the patent owner, the restrictions of the "license notices" are to be treated as void attempts to control prices after sale, and, in buying from the dealers and reselling to the public at prices lower than the notices prescribe, such purchasers do not violate the rights secured to the patent owner by the patent law.
230 F. 449 reversed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 243 U.S. 490 (1917) in 243 U.S. 490 243 U.S. 494. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=C1UQL1VRJFMJFRY.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 243 U.S. 490 (1917), in 243 U.S. 490, page 243 U.S. 494. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=C1UQL1VRJFMJFRY.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 243 U.S. 490 (1917). cited in 1917, 243 U.S. 490, pp.243 U.S. 494. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=C1UQL1VRJFMJFRY.
|