| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Button-Fastener case ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Button-Fastener case
The ''Button-Fastener'' Case, ''Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co.'',〔77 Fed. 288, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2241 (6th Cir. 1896).〕 also known as the ''Peninsular Button-Fastener Case,'' was for a time a highly influential decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Many courts of appeals, and the United States Supreme Court in the ''A.B. Dick case''〔''Henry v. A.B. Dick Co.'', 224 U.S. 1 (1912).〕 adopted its "inherency doctrine"—"the argument that, since the patentee may withhold his patent altogether from public use, he must logically and necessarily be permitted to impose any conditions which he chooses upon any use which he may allow of it."〔The quoted language is from ''Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co.'', 243 U.S. 502, 514 (1917).〕 In 1917, however, the Supreme Court expressly overruled the ''Button-Fastener'' Case and the ''A.B. Dick'' case, in the ''Motion Picture Patents'' case.
==Background==
Button-Fastener had patents on machines for fastening buttons to high-button shoes with staples.〔The staples were unpatented and were not even an element in a combination claim of the patents. 77 F. at 289.〕 This was a labor-intensive operation formerly done by hand at higher cost. The invention saved considerable labor in making the shoes, although commercially exploiting the invention presented a marketing problem. The machines were worth much more to high-volume users than to low-volume users, since the labor-saving benefits were directly proportional to the number of shoes on which the machines fastened buttons. But if Button-Fastener tried to sell the machines at different prices to the different users, there would be problems. First, it would be difficult or impossible to determine in advance of sale how intensively each shoe manufacturer would use the machines. Second, if the machines were sold cheaply to low-volume users, it would have been difficult or impossible to prevent those buyers from reselling their machines to those manufacturers that "should" pay a high price.〔See Ward S. Bowman, (''Tying Arrangements and the Leverage Problem'' ), 67 L.J. 19, 23 (1957).〕 But Button-Fastener came up with a business model that solved the problem. It sold the machines subject to a condition spelled out in a plate fastened to each machine, that the machine must use only the staples that Button-Fastener made and sold. As it told the court in its legal papers, "it makes nothing in the sale of its machines, and ... the entire profits of its business are made in the sale of staples." 〔''Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co.'', 65 F. 619, 621, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 3022 (C.C.D. Mich. 1895).〕 In effect, the tie-in operated as a counter on the machines, counting the number of uses made of the invention. An above-market price for the staples provided a patent royalty proportional to use of the invention.〔Bowman at 23-24.〕
But the high price for staples attracted an interloper. Eureka Specialty Co. began to sell the staples, an unpatented product, to some machine users. According to Button-Fastener, Eureka persuaded Button-Fastener's customers to disobey the notices on the machines.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Button-Fastener case」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|