596
The Green Bag
antee that the elector shall be allowed to express his wish by a single mark, our position is that he is guaranteed the right to express his will by a single mark if other voters are given the right to ex press theirs by a single mark, and there is no difficulty in according the right to all. “inequality in the facilities afforded the electors in casting their votes may defeat the will of the people as tho roughly as restrictions which the courts
would hold to operate as a disfranchise ment of voters." The opinion argued that if it were pro
vided “that the candidates of the party polling the highest vote at the last elec
tion should be printed in one column and the electors allowed to vote there
patentees to jobbers, and the goods contracts reached the with retail the trade company, underrendering dealers' the dealer liable to be withdrawn from the dealers’ list of the company if he undertook to undercut prices or to introduce rival goods by way of ex moved from change. The the dealer company's Menck list, was but re persisted in dealing in the company's articles, and on being sued by the com pany was adjudged by the High Court of Australia free to deal with the pat
ented articles as ordinary articles of commerce. The Privy Council reversed this deci sion, holding that the law applicable I0 the case was not that governing ordi
nary rights in personal property- On
candidates were required to be voted for by writing or pasting their names on
the contrary, the right to the privilege under the patent must be treated a5 distinct from the right of ownership1n
the ballots, Ithink no one would hesitate
the article itself.
to condemn the scheme as unconstitu tional." (Matter of Hopper, N. Y. Law Jour., Oct. 16.)
by a clear course of authority starting
for by a cross mark, while all other
It was demonstrated
with Belts v. Willmott, in 1871, and run‘ ning through all the cases referred to by
See
Gi'ifilth, C. J., that it was open to a licensee, by virtue of his statutOl')v
Rights of Patentees to
accompanied by restrictive conditions
Restra'in Competition — Coerc've Con tracts with Dealers Not Forbidden by
which would not apply in the Case of ordinary chattels; secondly, that the
Federal Carriers.
and
Monopolies.
State Powers.
monopoly, to make a sale sub M04103“
A nti-Monopoly Statute. England. A recent British case is of interest as involving questions presented by our own law of monopolies as affected by the rights of owners of patents. In National Phonograph C0. of Australia, Ltd. v. Menck (1911, A. C. p. 336) the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council dealt with a subject similar to that underlying the pending Massachusetts suits brought against the United Shoe Machinery Co. under the Sherman anti
trust law. The National Phonograph Co. sold the phonographs and phono graph records of which they were the
imposition of these conditions in the case of a sale was not presumed, but’ on the contrary, a sale having occurred‘
the presumption was that the full fight of ownership was intended to be Vest in the purchaser; while thirdly’ the
owner's rights in a patented chattel
would be limited if the knowledge 0’ conditions imposed by the patentee or those representing the patentee were brought home to him at the time?
sale. The right of patentees to festram competition by means of coercive con' tracts with dealers was thus conceded’ Patents.
See Monopolies.
i
