Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 116 F.1d 863 - Edison Phonograph Co. v. Pike

Edison Phonograph Co. v. Pike’s Empirical Analysis

116 F. 863 · 1902

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
December 1913
most recently cited

5 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Relies on Addyston Pipe Steel Company v. United States · Bement Sons v. National Harrow Company · Patterson v. Kentucky · Boesch v. Graff · Keeler v. Standard Folding Bed Co.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Notwithstanding these exceptions, the general rule is absolute freedom in the use or sale of rights under the patent laws of the United States. The very object of these laws is monopoly, and the rule is, with few exceptions, that any conditions which are not in their very nature illegal with regard to this kind of property, imposed by the patentee and agreed to by the licensee, for the right to manufacture or use or sell the article, will be upheld by the courts. ⅜ * * The provision in regard to the price at which the licensee would sell the article manufactured under the license was also an appropriate and reasonable condition. Tt tended to keep up the price of the implements manufactured and sold, but that was only recognizing the nature of the property dealt in, and providing for its value so l'ar as possible. This the parties were legally entitled to do. The owner of a patented article can, of course, charge such price as he may choose, and the owner of a patent may assign it or sell the right to manuí ture and sell the article patented upon, the condition that the assignee shall charge a certain amount for such article.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The provision in regard to the price at which the licensee would sell the • article manufactured under the license was also an appropriate and reasonable condition. It tended to keep up the price of the implements manufactured and sold, but that was only recognizing the nature of the property in, and providing for its value as far as possible. This the parties were legally entitled to do. The owner of a patented article can, of course, charge such price as he may choose, and the owner of a patent may assign it or sell the right to manufacture and sell the article patented upon the condition that the assignee shall charge a certain amount for such article.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Notice to Dealers. This record is sold subject to restrictions as to the persons to whom and the prices at which it may be sold. Any violation of such restrictions makes the seller or user an infringer of the Edison patents.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.