DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42346#0082
70
THE NEW COMPETITION
buy certain improved filament lamps whereby such deal-
ers or consumers must purchase all the ordinary -filament
lamps they need as a condition to obtaining the improved;
nor can any one of the defendants discriminate against any
dealer or consumer who wishes to purchase improved fila-
ment lamps because such dealer or consumer buys either
ordinary lamps or other improved filament lamps from
other dealers.”
What has become of the good, old-fashioned belief
that a man who has an improved or patented article may
use it as a lever to force the sale of his ordinary line ?
If an electric lamp manufacturer has an improved fila-
ment lamp, either patented or of secret process, why may
he not say to a dealer or a consumer, “I am under no obli-
gation to sell you my improved lamp. If I do sell to you
it will be at my price and on my terms, and the first con-
dition is that you buy of me all the lamps of all kinds that
you sell” ?
Up to the entering of the decree who would have be-
lieved it possible that any court would intervene and say
the manufacturer could not make such a contract?
The decree does not say that the individual may not
refuse to sell at all; it says that he may not refuse on the
ground that the dealer or consumer is also purchasing else-
where. The loop-hole for evasion may be large, but the
intent of the Court is plain—it is to give the customer the
widest possible latitude in purchasing and to take from
the seller the right to lay down conditions that will tend
to hold the customer.
If there were any possible doubt about the intention
of the Court it is dissipated by the following language:
“The defendants and each of them are perpetually enjoined
from utilizing any patents which they have or claim to have
or which they may hereafter acquire or claim to have ac-
quired, as a means of controlling the manufacture or sale
THE NEW COMPETITION
buy certain improved filament lamps whereby such deal-
ers or consumers must purchase all the ordinary -filament
lamps they need as a condition to obtaining the improved;
nor can any one of the defendants discriminate against any
dealer or consumer who wishes to purchase improved fila-
ment lamps because such dealer or consumer buys either
ordinary lamps or other improved filament lamps from
other dealers.”
What has become of the good, old-fashioned belief
that a man who has an improved or patented article may
use it as a lever to force the sale of his ordinary line ?
If an electric lamp manufacturer has an improved fila-
ment lamp, either patented or of secret process, why may
he not say to a dealer or a consumer, “I am under no obli-
gation to sell you my improved lamp. If I do sell to you
it will be at my price and on my terms, and the first con-
dition is that you buy of me all the lamps of all kinds that
you sell” ?
Up to the entering of the decree who would have be-
lieved it possible that any court would intervene and say
the manufacturer could not make such a contract?
The decree does not say that the individual may not
refuse to sell at all; it says that he may not refuse on the
ground that the dealer or consumer is also purchasing else-
where. The loop-hole for evasion may be large, but the
intent of the Court is plain—it is to give the customer the
widest possible latitude in purchasing and to take from
the seller the right to lay down conditions that will tend
to hold the customer.
If there were any possible doubt about the intention
of the Court it is dissipated by the following language:
“The defendants and each of them are perpetually enjoined
from utilizing any patents which they have or claim to have
or which they may hereafter acquire or claim to have ac-
quired, as a means of controlling the manufacture or sale