Henry Billings Brown

Name: Morgan Envelope Company v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Company — Opinion of the Court
Author: Henry Billings Brown

Morgan Envelope Company v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Company…

Summary

“Morgan Envelope Company v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Company — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Henry Billings Brown. It explores elements such as roll, patent and fixtures.

Quotes from Morgan Envelope Company v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Company… (Henry Billings Brown)

Henry Billings Brown, Morgan Envelope Company v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Company…

“ If the claim be good, it would seem to follow that any band of paper wound in such manner that the internal diameter is greater than the thickness of the paper would be an infringement, whatever be its shape, or for whatever purpose used. The size of the roll, too, is not made material, except that it must bear a certain relation to its inner diameter. Certainly it would apply to all toilet paper, even if wound in a cylindrical form, as the language of the claim, though not of the specification, indicates that it should be. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Henry Billings Brown, Morgan Envelope Company v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Company…

“ So, too, if the patent were construed as for an oblong roll, the fact that, from time immemorial, cotton and woolen goods and silks have been almost universally wound about a flat board or core, precisely as described in the patent, would indicate that there is no novelty in the oblong or oval shape, and that the patent, if supported at all, must be for the different purpose for which toilet paper is wound in this form. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Henry Billings Brown, Morgan Envelope Company v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Company…

“ In this case, however, the purchaser of the new roll does precisely what the patentee intended he should do; he replaces that which is in its nature perishable, and without the replacement of which the remainder of the device is of no value. The replacement is of a product which it is the object of the mechanism to deliver. The case is more nearly analogous to that of Wilson v. Simpson, 9 How. 109, in which the invention involved was a planing machine, and the patent sued upon covered the combination with the cutting knives or planes of a pressure roller to effect the planing of the planks. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Henry Billings Brown, Morgan Envelope Company v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Company…

“ There are doubtless many cases to the effect that the manufacture and sale of a single element of a combination, with intent that it shall be united to the other elements, and so complete the combination, is an infringement. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Henry Billings Brown, Morgan Envelope Company v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Company…

“ There was also put in evidence by the defendants a device known as the 'Wheeler Pocket Companion,' which was a small package of toilet paper of an oval form, differing from those covered by the Hicks patent only in size, and in the fact that no attention was paid to the relation of the inner to the outer convolutions, and no intent shown that when one convolution was torn off, the end of the next one would drop down into position to be grasped. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Henry Billings Brown, Morgan Envelope Company v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Company…

“ Defendants neither made, sold, nor used the mechanism invented by Hicks to serve out the toilet paper, except as they purchased it of the patentee; and the only acts proven against them were in selling oval rolls of paper of their own manufacture, with fixtures manufactured and sold by the plaintiff, in combination with its (the plaintiff's) paper, to persons other than the defendants, the fixtures having been obtained by defendants from the original purchasers of the patented combination ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Henry Billings Brown, Morgan Envelope Company v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Company…

“ The first defense raises the question whether, when a machine is designed to manufacture, distribute, or serve out to users a certain article, the article so dealt with can be said to be a part of the combination of which the machine itself is another part. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Henry Billings Brown, Morgan Envelope Company v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Company…

“ All these methods proved to be objectionable on account of the temptation offered to greed or wastefulness, in the facility with which unnecessary amounts of paper could be detached, which were either carried off or allowed to fall on the floor. ”

Henry Billings Brown

Summary

Quotes from Morgan Envelope Company v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Company… (Henry Billings Brown)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature