BROWN V. DEERE. 491 �pushed his invention or put its produets on the market. Oc- casionally, and to a limited estent, he had manufactured and sold his rotary seed droppers, but relied mostly on his oscil- latory machine. In the meantime the defendants and those with whom they are associated had put upon the market their machines and built up a large trade. It is unneces- sary now to discass the relative merits of the respective ma- chines. �One fact, however, bas not escaped the attention of the court, viz. : that the plaintif seemingly attached very little value to his patent until the defendants and their associates introduced and popularized plaintiff's patent. Still the plain- tiff's rights exist and must be protected, The defendants knew the pendency of this suit, and that it was ripe for hear- ing; that it could be set down for hearing at the instance of either party before the defendants made any of the contracts named in either aflSdavit. They are vendors of the infring- ing machines, and pending this suit, and while it was ready for final hearing, they entered into contracts to furnish the same, the non-fulfilment of which will subject them to serions damage. Does that fact present any just ground for permit- ting them to continue their infringement ? Were not those contracts in their own writing? The plaintili submits afBda- vits to the effect that he is prepared to supply the trade to Bome, if not to the fuU, extent of the demand. This is not a case where the patentee relies upon the sale of liceiises or a royalty, but where he maintains his monopoly both as man- ufacturer and vendor. The patent bas about a year to run. Ail that he can derive therefrom must come to him through his monopoly within that time. Hence the importance to him of having the interlocutory decree take immediate ef- fect. Some courts in special cases seem to place stress on the fact that the life of a patent is about to expire, when asked to suspend the operation of an interlocutbry decree; their judgments, it is to be supposed, resting upon the thought that the injury to the plaintiflf must be slight, for wbich full compensation can be given, while on the other hand the defendant may be largely damaged if he is not permitted to ��� �
