Jesse Isidor Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Company
| Decision Date | 09 April 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 374,374 |
| Parties | JESSE ISIDOR STRAUS et al., Petitioners, v. VICTOR TALKING MACHINE COMPANY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Edmond E. Wise and Walter C. Noyes for petitioners.
Messrs. Hector T. Fenton and Frederick A. Blount for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 491-493 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Elisha K. Camp, Daniel N. Kirby, and Taylor E. Brown as amici curiae.
It will contribute to brevity to designate the parties to this proceeding as they were in the trial court,—the respondent as plaintiff and the petitioners as defendants.
The plaintiff in its bill alleges: that it is a corporation of New Jersey; that for many years it has been manufacturing sound-reproducing machines embodying various features covered by patents of which it is the owner, and that, for the purpose of marketing these machines to the best advantage, about August 1st, 1913, it adopted a form of contract which it calls a 'License Contract' and a form of notice called a 'License Notice,' under which it alleges all of its machines have, since that date, been furnished to dealers and to the public.
This 'License Notice,' which is attached to each machine and is set out in full in the bill, declares that the machine to which it is attached is manufactured under patents, is licensed for the term of the patent under which it is licensed having the longest time to run, and may be used only with sound records, sound boxes, and needles manufactured by the plaintiff; that only the right to use the machine 'for demonstrating purposes' is granted to 'distributors' (wholesale dealers), but that these 'distributors' may assign a like right 'to the public' or to 'regularly licensed Victor dealers' (retailers) 'at the dealer's regular discount royalty;' that the 'dealers' may convey the 'license to use the machine' only when a 'royalty' of not less than $200 shall have been paid, and upon the 'consideration' that all of the conditions of the 'licanse' shall have been observed; that the title to the machine shall remain in the plaintiff, which shall have the right to repossess it upon breach of any of the conditions of the notice, by paying to the user the amount paid by him, less 5 per cent for each year that the machine has been used. The notice in terms reserves the right to the plaintiff to inspect, test, and repair the machine at all times and to instruct the user in its use, 'but it assumes no obligation to do so;' it provides that 'any excessive use or violation of the conditions shall be an infringement of plaintiff's patent,' and that any erasure or removal of the notice will be considered as a violation of the license. Finally, it provides that at the expiration of the patent 'under which it is licensed' having the longest time to run the machine shall become the property of the licensee provided all the conditions recited in the notice shall have been complied with, and the acceptance of the machine is declared to be 'an acceptance of these conditions.'
The contract between the plaintiff and its dealers is not set out in full in the bill, but it is alleged that since August 1st, 1913, the plaintiff has had with each of its 7,000 licensed dealers a written contract in which all the terms of the 'License Notice' are in substance repeated, and in addition it is alleged that each dealer, 'if he has signed the assent thereto,' is authorized to dispose of any machines received from 'the plaintiff directly or through a paramount distributing dealer,' but subject to all of the conditions expressed in the 'License Notice.' It is alleged that this contract contains the provision that 'a breach of any of the conditions on the part of a distributor will render him liable, not only for an infringement of the patent, but to an action on the contract or other proper remedy.'
As to the defendants, the bill alleges that they conduct a large mercantile business in New York city; that with full knowledge of the terms of the contract, as described, between the plaintiff and its distributors, and of the 'License Notice' attached to each machine, the defendants, 'being members of the general unlicensed public,' and having no contract relation with the plaintiff or with any of its licensed distributors or licensed dealers, induced 'covertly and on various pretenses,' one or more of plaintiff's licensed distributors or dealers to violate his or their contracts with the plaintiff, providing that no machines should be delivered to any unlicensed member of the general public until 'the full license price' stated in the 'License Notice' affixed to each machine was paid, and thereby obtained possession of a large number of such machines at much less than the prices stated in the 'License Notice;' that under the terms of the said license agreement and notice, they have no title to the same, and that they have sold large numbers thereof to the public, and are proposing and threatening to dispose of the remainder of those which they have acquired to 'the unlicensed general public,' at much less than the price stated in the notice affixed to each machine.
The prayer is for an injunction restraining the defendants from selling any of the machines, possession of which they have acquired, from other and further violation of plaintiff's rights under its letters patent, and for the usual accounting and for damages.
The district court regarded the transaction described in the 'License Notice' as in substance a sale which exhausted the interest of the plaintiff in the machine, except as to the right to have it used with records and needles as provided for therein, and this right not being involved in this case, it dismissed the bill. 222 Fed. 524.
On appeal, the circuit court of appeals affirmed this judgment and remanded the case, but with instructions to allow the plaintiff to amend its bill 'if it be so advised.' 140 C. C. A. 519, 225 Fed. 535.
The bill was thereafter so amended as to allege that the defendants had in their possession a large number of machines which they had obtained from plaintiff's distributors and dealers at much less in each case than the price stated in the 'License Notice,' and that they were proposing to dispose of these machines to the 'unlicensed general public' at less than the prices stated in the 'License Notice,' in disregard of plaintiff's rights.
Again, the district court, on the same ground as before, sustained a motion to dismiss the bill, but the circuit court of appeals reversed this holding (144 C. C. A. 591, 230 Fed. 449) and the case is here for review on certiorari.
The abstract of the bill which we have given makes it plain: That whatever rights the plaintiff has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Line Materials Co
...Co., 243 U.S. 502, 516, 37 S.Ct. 416, 420, 61 L.Ed. 871, L.R.A. 1917E, 1187, Ann.Cas.1918A, 959; Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 243 U.S. 490, 500, 501, 37 S.Ct. 412, 415, 61 L.Ed. 866, L.R.A.1917E, 1186, Ann.Cas.1918A, 955; Bauer v. O'Donnell, 229 U.S. 1, 16, 17, 33 S.Ct. 616, 619, 5......
-
United States v. Univis Lens Co.
...& Cie v. O'Donnell, 229 U.S. 1, 33 S.Ct. 616, 57 L. Ed. 1041, 50 L.R.A.,N.S., 1185, Ann.Cas. 1915A, 150; Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 243 U.S. 490, 37 S.Ct. 412, 61 L.Ed. 866, L.R.A.1917E, 1196, Ann.Cas. 1918A, 955; Boston Store v. American Graphophone Co., 246 U.S. 8, 38 S.Ct. 257......
-
Straight Side Basket Corporation v. Webster Basket Co., 744 A.
...O'Donnell, 229 U. S. 1, 33 S. Ct. 616, 57 L. Ed. 1041, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1185, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 150; Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 243 U. S. 490, 37 S. Ct. 412, 61 L. Ed. 866, L. R. A. 1917E, 1196, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 955; Boston Store v. American Graphophone Co., 246 U. S. 8, 38 S. ......
-
State v. Langley, 2058
... ... Company of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1. The ... Relations, 262 U.S. 522; Strauss v. Talking Machine ... Company, 243 U.S. 490. It was held ... ...
-
The Image Theory: RPM and the Allure of High Prices
...F. 373 (S.D. Ohio 1917).68 See, e.g., Boston Store of Chi. v. Am. Graphophone Co., 246 U.S. 8(1918); Straus v. Victor Talking Mach. Co., 243 U.S. 490 (1917); N.J. Patent Co.v. Schaefer, 178 F. 276 (3d Cir. 1909); Nat’l Phonograph Co. v. Schlegel, 128 The free riding explanation for RPM and ......
-
Ctrl+alt+delete: Does the Bankruptcy Code Need a Reboot? the Eligibility of Consumer Digital Goods for Liquidation
...REV. 981 (1996).41. Perzanowski & Schultz, supra note 16, at 896.42. Id. at 896-97.43. See id. (citing Straus v. Victor Talking Mach. Co., 243 U.S. 490, 501 (1917) ("[N]ot one purchaser in many would read such a notice, and that not one in a much greater number, if he did read it, could und......
-
Finding a Place for Mallinckrodt and Conditional Sales in the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine: Will "lex" Mark the Spot?
...gave and further hold you all liable for the infringing use in the one-day interim."40. See Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 243 U.S. 490, 500-01 (1917) (describing such restraint as "obnoxious to the public interest" and "hateful to the law from Lord Coke's day to ours.").41. See Quan......
-
The Relation of Patents to Industrial Monopolies
...whether or not a device ispatentable will advise their clients that intheir opinion the device is not patentable,35 229 U. S. I.36 243 U. S. 490; 246 U. S. 8.37 Memorandum on Unfair Competition at theCommon Law (1916), p. 141.38 Oldfield Hearings of 1912, No. 10, p. 27.39 Hearings before th......