翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Le Roux Smith Le Roux ・ Le Roux, Ardèche ・ Le Rove ・ Le Roy (village), New York ・ Le Roy Airport ・ Le Roy Commercial Historic District ・ Le Roy D. Downs ・ Le Roy et fils ・ Le Roy Froom ・ Le Roy House and Union Free School ・ Le Roy Simmons ・ Le Roy Township, Bremer County, Iowa ・ Le Roy Township, Coffey County, Kansas ・ Le Roy Township, Michigan ・ Le Roy Township, Mower County, Minnesota ・ Le Roy v. Tatham ・ Le Roy Williams ・ Le Roy, Illinois ・ Le Roy, Iowa ・ Le Roy, Michigan ・ Le Roy, Minnesota ・ Le Roy, New York ・ Le Roy, New York (disambiguation) ・ Le Royal Hotel (Amman) ・ Le Royal Mansour Hotel ・ Le Royal Meridien, Chennai ・ Le Royal Monceau Raffles Paris ・ Le Roys Bush, Auckland ・ Le Rozel ・ Le Rozier Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Le Roy v. Tatham ： ウィキペディア英語版 Le Roy v. Tatham ''Le Roy v. v. Tatham'' is an 1852 decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that a principle in the abstract cannot be patented, and no one can claim in it an exclusive right. The inventors had discovered the principle that hot, but congealed, lead under pressure would re-unite as an unbroken solid material, which permitted manufacture of a superior lead pipe. The apparatus to make lead pipe was old and obvious: the inventors, by making slight changes in the old machinery to provide sufficient heat and pressure to remelt the lead, in effect, invented a new use of an old machine. The claim was to the old or obvious apparatus (as an apparatus) "when used to form pipes of metal under heat and pressure in the manner set forth or in any other manner substantially the same." It was not lawful to patent the old apparatus again, however used, so that the patent amounted to an attempt to patent the principle. That made the patent invalid.〔55 U.S. (14 How.) 156 (1852).〕 ==Background== John and Charles Hanson, of Huddersfield, England, made the alleged invention in 1837. Having been the first to discover that heating lead under pressure would eliminate discontinuities, such as a seam in cast lead pipe, and that this effect could be achieved by making and using the old, well-known machinery with slight adjustments, obtained a patent in which the specification stated that the inventors "do not claim any of the parts—the cylinder, core, die, or bridge, but that they claim the combination when used to form pipes of metal, under heat and pressure, in the way they have described." They assigned their rights to Tatham, who sued the defendants, Le Roy and Smith, in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York for patent infringement.〔55 U.S. at 156-57.〕 The judge charged the jury: "That the originality did not consist in the novelty of the machinery, but in bringing a newly discovered principle into practical application by which an useful article of manufacture is produced, and wrought pipe made, as distinguished from cast pipe." The jury rendered a verdict against the defendants for $11,394.〔55 U.S. at 157.〕 The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court. 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「Le Roy v. Tatham」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.