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