The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation Part 61

[1135] Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 732 (1878).

[1136] Searight _v._ Stokes, 3 How. 151, 169 (1845).

[1137] Re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 599 (1895).

[1138] 2 Cong. Globe 4, 10 (1835).

[1139] Ibid. 298. On this point his reasoning would appear to be vindicated by such decisions, as Bowman _v._ Chicago & N.W.R. Co., 125 U.S. 465 (1888) and Leisy _v._ Hardin, 135 U.S. 100 (1890) denying the right of the States to prevent the importation of alcoholic beverages from other States.

[1140] 96 U.S. 727 (1878).

[1141] Ibid. 732.

[1142] Public Clearing House _v._ Coyne, 194 U.S. 497 (1904), followed in Donaldson _v._ Read Magazine, 333 U.S. 178 (1948).

[1143] 194 U.S. at 506.

[1144] Lewis Publishing Co. _v._ Morgan, 229 U.S. 288, 316 (1913).

[1145] 255 U.S. 407 (1921).

[1146] Hannegan _v._ Esquire, Inc., 327 U.S. 146, 155 (1946).

[1147] 49 Stat. 803, 812, 813 (1935), 15 U.S.C. 79d, 79e (1946).

[1148] Electric Bond & Share Co. _v._ Securities and Exchange Comm'n., 303 U.S. 419 (1938).

[1149] Ibid. 442.

[1150] Pensacola Teleg. Co. _v._ Western U. Teleg. Co., 90 U.S. 1 (1878).

[1151] Illinois C.R. Co. _v._ Illinois ex rel. Butler, 163 U.S. 142 (1896).

[1152] Gladson _v._ Minnesota, 166 U.S. 427 (1897).

[1153] Price _v._ Pennsylvania R. Co., 113 U.S. 218 (1885); Martin _v._ Pittsburgh & L.E.R. Co., 203 U.S. 284 (1906).

[1154] Railway Mail a.s.sn. _v._ Corsi, 326 U.S. 88 (1945).

[1155] United States _v._ Kirby, 7 Wall. 482 (1869).

[1156] Johnson _v._ Maryland, 254 U.S. 51 (1920).

[1157] Pennock _v._ Dialogue, 2 Pet. 1, 17, 18 (1829).

[1158] Wheaton _v._ Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 656, 658 (1834).

[1159] Kendall _v._ Winsor, 21 How. 322, 328 (1859); Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. _v._ Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950).

[1160] Evans _v._ Jordan, 9 Cr. 199 (1815); Bloomer _v._ McQuewan, 14 How. 539, 548 (1852); Bloomer _v._ Millinger, 1 Wall. 340, 350 (1864); Eunson _v._ Dodge, 18 Wall. 414, 416 (1873).

[1161] Brown _v._ d.u.c.h.esne, 19 How. 183, 195 (1857).

[1162] Seymour _v._ Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 549 (1871). _Cf._ Union Paper Collar Co. _v._ Van Dusen, 23 Wall. 530, 563 (1875); Reckendorfer _v._ Faber, 92 U.S. 347, 356 (1876).

[1163] Smith _v._ Nichols, 21 Wall. 112, 118 (1875).

[1164] Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. _v._ Howard, 20 Wall. 498, 507 (1874); Clark Thread Co. _v._ Willimantic Linen Co., 140 U.S. 481, 489 (1891).

[1165] Funk Bros. Seed Co. _v._ Kalo Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948).

_Cf._ Dow Chemical Co. _v._ Halliburton Co., 324 U.S. 320 (1945); Cuno Corp. _v._ Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84, 89 (1941).

[1166] Sinclair & Carroll Co. _v._ Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327 (1945); Marconi Wireless Teleg. Co. _v._ United States, 320 U.S. 1 (1943).

[1167] Keystone Mfg. Co. _v._ Adams, 151 U.S. 139 (1894); Diamond Rubber Co. _v._ Consolidated Tire Co., 220 U.S. 428 (1911).

[1168] Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. _v._ Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950). An interesting concurring opinion was filed by Justice Douglas for himself and Justice Black: "It is not enough,"

says Justice Douglas, "that an article is new and useful. The Const.i.tution never sanctioned the patenting of gadgets. Patents serve a higher end--the advancement of science. An invention need not be as startling as an atomic bomb to be patentable. But it has to be of such quality and distinction that masters of the scientific field in which it falls will recognize it as an advance." Ibid. 154-155. He then quotes the following from an opinion of Justice Bradley's given 70 years ago:

"It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a cla.s.s of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts. It embarra.s.ses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown liabilities to lawsuits and vexatious accountings for profits made in good faith. (Atlantic Works _v._ Brady, 107 U.S. 192, 200 (1882))."

Ibid. 155.

The opinion concludes: "The attempts through the years to get a broader, looser conception of patents than the Const.i.tution contemplates have been persistent. The Patent Office, like most administrative agencies, has looked with favor on the opportunity which the exercise of discretion affords to expand its own jurisdiction. And so it has placed a host of gadgets under the armour of patents--gadgets that obviously have had no place in the const.i.tutional scheme of advancing scientific knowledge. A few that have reached this Court show the pressure to extend monopoly to the simplest of devices:

"Hotchkiss _v._ Greenwood, 11 How. 248 (1850): Doork.n.o.b made of clay rather than metal or wood, where different shaped doork.n.o.bs had previously been made of clay.

"Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. _v._ Howard, 20 Wall. 498 (1874): Rubber caps put on wood pencils to serve as erasers.

"Union Paper Collar Co. _v._ Van Dusen, 23 Wall. 530 (1875): Making collars of parchment paper where linen paper and linen had previously been used.

"Brown _v._ Piper, 91 U.S. 37 (1875): A method for preserving fish by freezing them in a container operating in the same manner as an ice cream freezer.

"Reckendorfer _v._ Faber, 92 U.S. 347 (1876): Inserting a piece of rubber in a slot in the end of a wood pencil to serve as an eraser.

"Dalton _v._ Jennings, 93 U.S. 271 (1876): Fine thread placed across open squares in a regular hairnet to keep hair in place more effectively.

"Double-Pointed Tack Co. _v._ Two Rivers Mfg. Co., 109 U.S. 117 (1883): Putting a metal washer on a wire staple.

"Miller _v._ Foree, 116 U.S. 22 (1885): A stamp for impressing initials in the side of a plug of tobacco.

"Preston _v._ Manard, 116 U.S. 661 (1886): A hose reel of large diameter so that water may flow through hose while it is wound on the reel.

"Hendy _v._ Miners' Iron Works, 127 U.S. 370 (1888): Putting rollers on a machine to make it moveable.

"St. Germain _v._ Brunswick, 135 U.S. 227 (1890): Revolving cue rack.

"Shenfield _v._ Nashawannuck Mfg. Co., 137 U.S. 56 (1890): Using flat cord instead of round cord for the loop at the end of suspenders.