Music Trade Review
Issue: 1912 Vol. 55 N. 7 - Page 8
Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org, arcade-museum.com -- digitized with support from namm.org
THE
8
MU31C TRADE
REVIEW
OLDFIELD REPORTS PATENT REFORM BILL.
Places Revised Measure Before House—Bill Reduced in Scope but Makes Important Changes—
Summary of New Points—Enumeration of Illegal Acts—Change in Applioation of the Sher-
man Law—Rights and Protection Granted Patentees Defined.
(Special to The Review.)
Washington, D. C, Aug. 10, 1912.
Representative Oldfield, chairman of the House
Committee on Patents, has reported the revised
patent reform bill on which he and his committee
have been working for some time past. The Old-
field bill in its new form, as already referred to in
an extended analysis which appeared in The Re-
view, recently, while not nearly as inclusive as the
former measure which is now discarded, would
make some extensive changes in the patent law of
the United States. There is no chance of its be-
coming laws at this session of Congress and very
little of its passing even a single house.
The chief provisions of the bill are as follows:
1. I t places restrictions imposed by patentees selling their
rights upon the footing of common law contracts, their
validity to be tested on the same principles as other trade
contracts.
2. It provides that a patent shall not be used to restrain
trade and prohibits the use of a patent as a part of a com-
bination.
3. I t enumerates the acts in connection with business in
patented articles which are ordinarily harmless, but which
experience has shown to be dangerous when used to re-
strain trade.
• 4. I t provides for the temporary protection of those who
have become dependent upon illegal trusts for their bttsi-
. jipss existence.
- } 5. It seeks to accord redress in cases where violations of
the Sherman law have been judicially established.
The most elaborate work in the bill is devoted to the
enumeration of unlawful acts as above referred to. This
is found in Section 5, which may be summarized as follows:
'•••'. Clause (a) is designed to prevent any vendor engaged in
a combination in restraint of trade from pursuing the prac-
tise of fixing prices at which patented articles shall be sold.
Clause (b) is designed to prevent any vendor of a patented
article who is engaged in a combination in restraint of
trade from using his patent as the means of suppressing
competition in some other article to which his patent does
not "apply. I n other words, a patent is. so dangerous an
'instrument that its mere, use in such a combination should
be held conclusive evidence of the unreasonableness of the
restraint exercised. Clause (b) undertakes further to make
clear in the tight of our experiences certain specific ways by
which such a perverted use of the patent should not be
made, namely, the owner of a patent shall not make any
express agreement against a customer purchasing any article
from some other person; he shall not make his sale of the
patented article condtional upon the customer purchasing
other articles from him; he shall not prohibit the articles
sold from being used in connection with articles purchased
from some other person; he shall not indirectly accomplish
these restrictions upon the purchase of, other articles by any
discount or discrimination in price based upon whether or
not the customer purchases other articles from others.
Clause (c) undertakes specificially to prevent those com-
bining in restraint of trade from acquiring any other patent
with a view to preventing competition in the patented arti-
cle. This provision is designed to prevent the acquisition of
patents not for use, but for the purpose of "shelving" the
same, and thereby preventing competition.
Clause (d). Trusts owning an article necessary for the
trade of a dealer have frequently endeavored to compel its
exclusive use by ascertaining the probable amount of the
article which could possibly be used by the merchant and
by making the use of that amount a condition of receiving
the usual discount. This provision does not, of course, pre-
vent the fixing of lower rates for sales by wholesale. I t is
operative only when the fixing of a requisite quantity or
aggregate price to secure a discount is made for the pur-
pose of preventing competition a a d , by those engaged in
restraining trade.
Clause (e). This clause is designed to prevent .those com-
bining to restrain trade from suppressing competition by
discriminative use of their power enjoyed under the patent.
For instance, where a member of a combination in restraint
of trade controlling a patented article necessary in the pro-
duction of another article either refuses altogether to sup-
ply it to the competitor or consents to supply it only if
the competitor joins in a combination or pool..
Clause (f) deals with the converse case to that referred
to in (e), namely, discrimination in .favor of a particular
individual in order to suppress competition of others.
Clause (g) seeks to prohibit still another form of dis-
crimination against individuals or districts with a view to
restraining competition. It, of course, has no application
unless that be its purpose.
Clause (h) seeks to prevent that specific means of un-
fair competition so effectively practised by the Standard Oil
and Tobacco trusts of doing business through a concern
which purports to be independent of the trust—the so-called
fake independent.
Clause (i) is directed against the practise of temporary
cut-throat competition so persistently pursued by the Stand-
ard Oil and Tobacco trusts.
Clause (j.)This clause is designed to prevent the illegal
and immoral methods so frequently pursued by the Standard
Oil and Tobacco trusts of illegally securing secret infor-
mation as an instrument for preventing competition.
Clause (k). This is more specific, but designed to meet
cases of a character similiar to those referred to in the
discussion of clause (e).
Clause (1). Any combination to restrain trade pursued by
a vender of a patented article should be illegal if the com-
bination uses any unfair or oppressive method of com-
petition. •
Section 7 provides in substance that whenever in any
suit instituted by the Government final decree is rendered
to the effect that the defendant has entered into a combina-
tion in unreasonable restraint of trade, that finding shall be
conclusive as against the defendant in any proceeding
brought against him by any person or corporation. A person
injured by an illegal combination who brought such suit for
damages would under this section be relieved from the
necessity of proving the illegality of the defendant's acts.
In order to recover he should be obliged to prove merely
the amount of the loss which he had suffered by reason of
the defendant's acts—a comparatively simple matter.
Section 8 seeks to further facilitate the remedy to the
injured party by enabling them to establish their claim for
damages and secure other appropriate relief in the same
proceeding in which the Government files its final decree.
It is a less expensive course than to institute an indepen-
dent suit, and it may result in much swifter remedy by
reason of the fact that the petition would come before the
court which had already familiarized itself with the com-
plicated facts involved in the litigation.
Section 8 also removes the danger to the injured party
of losing his right to compensation through the lapse of
time; for it provides that the cause of action shall not be
barred if begun within three years after the final judgment
declaring the law to have been violated. In other words,
unless at the time of the passage of the proposed bill the
claim is already barred by the statute of limitations the
injured person may without the danger of losing his right,
await the action of the Government. He is, of course, ob
liged to exercise diligence after the Government has con-
cluded its contest.
Section 9 is designed to make the provisions of the Sher-
man law when applied to cases involving patents effective
so far as concerns the future; that is, to give the court
power (if it does not already possess it) to do those things
necessary effectively to restore competitive conditions.
N. L. McBrayer has opened a new piano store in
Oklahoma City, Okla.
The Vough with the changeable pitch is differ-
ent from any other piano on the market.
u
It is different because by a slight
pressure of the finger the instrument
may be changed from concert to in-
ternational pitch, thus making it
invaluable in theatres, concert halls,
public institutions where pianos are
essential, choirs, rehearsal halls, in
the home—in fact wherever a first
class piano is desired.
This patented changeable pitch
device of the Vough makes it inval-
uable to singers and professional
people generally. It is not an ex-
periment, but has been in use for
many long years, and to-day is used
in over three hundred theatres and
opera houses as well as hundreds of
other public places.
The Vough piano, apart from its
changeable pitch feature, is an in-
strument of the highest standing.
It is carefully built, contains a scale
that has won the highest encomiums
for its evenness and tone quality, is
an instrument that throughout is
regulated with artistic skill and the
casings are always attractive. In
brief, the Vough is "different" from
the usual run of pianos and if you
have the agency for this instrument
you have m&ny points decidedly in
your favor.
The VOUGH PIANO CO., Waterloo, N. Y.
THE
8
MU31C TRADE
REVIEW
OLDFIELD REPORTS PATENT REFORM BILL.
Places Revised Measure Before House—Bill Reduced in Scope but Makes Important Changes—
Summary of New Points—Enumeration of Illegal Acts—Change in Applioation of the Sher-
man Law—Rights and Protection Granted Patentees Defined.
(Special to The Review.)
Washington, D. C, Aug. 10, 1912.
Representative Oldfield, chairman of the House
Committee on Patents, has reported the revised
patent reform bill on which he and his committee
have been working for some time past. The Old-
field bill in its new form, as already referred to in
an extended analysis which appeared in The Re-
view, recently, while not nearly as inclusive as the
former measure which is now discarded, would
make some extensive changes in the patent law of
the United States. There is no chance of its be-
coming laws at this session of Congress and very
little of its passing even a single house.
The chief provisions of the bill are as follows:
1. I t places restrictions imposed by patentees selling their
rights upon the footing of common law contracts, their
validity to be tested on the same principles as other trade
contracts.
2. It provides that a patent shall not be used to restrain
trade and prohibits the use of a patent as a part of a com-
bination.
3. I t enumerates the acts in connection with business in
patented articles which are ordinarily harmless, but which
experience has shown to be dangerous when used to re-
strain trade.
• 4. I t provides for the temporary protection of those who
have become dependent upon illegal trusts for their bttsi-
. jipss existence.
- } 5. It seeks to accord redress in cases where violations of
the Sherman law have been judicially established.
The most elaborate work in the bill is devoted to the
enumeration of unlawful acts as above referred to. This
is found in Section 5, which may be summarized as follows:
'•••'. Clause (a) is designed to prevent any vendor engaged in
a combination in restraint of trade from pursuing the prac-
tise of fixing prices at which patented articles shall be sold.
Clause (b) is designed to prevent any vendor of a patented
article who is engaged in a combination in restraint of
trade from using his patent as the means of suppressing
competition in some other article to which his patent does
not "apply. I n other words, a patent is. so dangerous an
'instrument that its mere, use in such a combination should
be held conclusive evidence of the unreasonableness of the
restraint exercised. Clause (b) undertakes further to make
clear in the tight of our experiences certain specific ways by
which such a perverted use of the patent should not be
made, namely, the owner of a patent shall not make any
express agreement against a customer purchasing any article
from some other person; he shall not make his sale of the
patented article condtional upon the customer purchasing
other articles from him; he shall not prohibit the articles
sold from being used in connection with articles purchased
from some other person; he shall not indirectly accomplish
these restrictions upon the purchase of, other articles by any
discount or discrimination in price based upon whether or
not the customer purchases other articles from others.
Clause (c) undertakes specificially to prevent those com-
bining in restraint of trade from acquiring any other patent
with a view to preventing competition in the patented arti-
cle. This provision is designed to prevent the acquisition of
patents not for use, but for the purpose of "shelving" the
same, and thereby preventing competition.
Clause (d). Trusts owning an article necessary for the
trade of a dealer have frequently endeavored to compel its
exclusive use by ascertaining the probable amount of the
article which could possibly be used by the merchant and
by making the use of that amount a condition of receiving
the usual discount. This provision does not, of course, pre-
vent the fixing of lower rates for sales by wholesale. I t is
operative only when the fixing of a requisite quantity or
aggregate price to secure a discount is made for the pur-
pose of preventing competition a a d , by those engaged in
restraining trade.
Clause (e). This clause is designed to prevent .those com-
bining to restrain trade from suppressing competition by
discriminative use of their power enjoyed under the patent.
For instance, where a member of a combination in restraint
of trade controlling a patented article necessary in the pro-
duction of another article either refuses altogether to sup-
ply it to the competitor or consents to supply it only if
the competitor joins in a combination or pool..
Clause (f) deals with the converse case to that referred
to in (e), namely, discrimination in .favor of a particular
individual in order to suppress competition of others.
Clause (g) seeks to prohibit still another form of dis-
crimination against individuals or districts with a view to
restraining competition. It, of course, has no application
unless that be its purpose.
Clause (h) seeks to prevent that specific means of un-
fair competition so effectively practised by the Standard Oil
and Tobacco trusts of doing business through a concern
which purports to be independent of the trust—the so-called
fake independent.
Clause (i) is directed against the practise of temporary
cut-throat competition so persistently pursued by the Stand-
ard Oil and Tobacco trusts.
Clause (j.)This clause is designed to prevent the illegal
and immoral methods so frequently pursued by the Standard
Oil and Tobacco trusts of illegally securing secret infor-
mation as an instrument for preventing competition.
Clause (k). This is more specific, but designed to meet
cases of a character similiar to those referred to in the
discussion of clause (e).
Clause (1). Any combination to restrain trade pursued by
a vender of a patented article should be illegal if the com-
bination uses any unfair or oppressive method of com-
petition. •
Section 7 provides in substance that whenever in any
suit instituted by the Government final decree is rendered
to the effect that the defendant has entered into a combina-
tion in unreasonable restraint of trade, that finding shall be
conclusive as against the defendant in any proceeding
brought against him by any person or corporation. A person
injured by an illegal combination who brought such suit for
damages would under this section be relieved from the
necessity of proving the illegality of the defendant's acts.
In order to recover he should be obliged to prove merely
the amount of the loss which he had suffered by reason of
the defendant's acts—a comparatively simple matter.
Section 8 seeks to further facilitate the remedy to the
injured party by enabling them to establish their claim for
damages and secure other appropriate relief in the same
proceeding in which the Government files its final decree.
It is a less expensive course than to institute an indepen-
dent suit, and it may result in much swifter remedy by
reason of the fact that the petition would come before the
court which had already familiarized itself with the com-
plicated facts involved in the litigation.
Section 8 also removes the danger to the injured party
of losing his right to compensation through the lapse of
time; for it provides that the cause of action shall not be
barred if begun within three years after the final judgment
declaring the law to have been violated. In other words,
unless at the time of the passage of the proposed bill the
claim is already barred by the statute of limitations the
injured person may without the danger of losing his right,
await the action of the Government. He is, of course, ob
liged to exercise diligence after the Government has con-
cluded its contest.
Section 9 is designed to make the provisions of the Sher-
man law when applied to cases involving patents effective
so far as concerns the future; that is, to give the court
power (if it does not already possess it) to do those things
necessary effectively to restore competitive conditions.
N. L. McBrayer has opened a new piano store in
Oklahoma City, Okla.
The Vough with the changeable pitch is differ-
ent from any other piano on the market.
u
It is different because by a slight
pressure of the finger the instrument
may be changed from concert to in-
ternational pitch, thus making it
invaluable in theatres, concert halls,
public institutions where pianos are
essential, choirs, rehearsal halls, in
the home—in fact wherever a first
class piano is desired.
This patented changeable pitch
device of the Vough makes it inval-
uable to singers and professional
people generally. It is not an ex-
periment, but has been in use for
many long years, and to-day is used
in over three hundred theatres and
opera houses as well as hundreds of
other public places.
The Vough piano, apart from its
changeable pitch feature, is an in-
strument of the highest standing.
It is carefully built, contains a scale
that has won the highest encomiums
for its evenness and tone quality, is
an instrument that throughout is
regulated with artistic skill and the
casings are always attractive. In
brief, the Vough is "different" from
the usual run of pianos and if you
have the agency for this instrument
you have m&ny points decidedly in
your favor.
The VOUGH PIANO CO., Waterloo, N. Y.
Future scanning projects are planned by the International Arcade Museum Library (IAML).