Summary

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black,  Aro Manufacturing Company v. Convertible Top Replacement Company…

“ When articles are not patentable and therefore are in the public domain, as these fabric covers were, to grant them a legally protected monopoly offends the constitutional plan of a competitive economy free from patent monopolies except where there are patentable 'Discoveries.' And the grant of a patent monopoly to the fabrics can no more be justified constitutionally by calling their sale by competitors 'contributory infringement' than by giving it an other label. ”
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black,  Aro Manufacturing Company v. Convertible Top Replacement Company…

“ On the other hand, advocates of a broad liability for contributory infringement said that there should be required only knowledge that an article was to be used in a particular device-that a person would be liable as a contributory infringer even if he did not know of the existence of any patent and of any likely infringement. ”
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature