Summary

Portrait of Potter Stewart Potter Stewart Simpson v. United Oil Company of California…

Nor is the power of a consignor to fix the prices at which his consignee sells augmented in any respect by the possession of a patent on the goods so consigned. It is not by virtue of a patent monopoly that a bona fide consignor may control the price at which his consignee sells; his control over price flows from the simple fact that the owner of goods, so long as he remains the owner, has the unquestioned right to determine the price at which he will sell them. [2]
It is clear, therefore, that the Court today overrules General Electric.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Potter Stewart Potter Stewart Simpson v. United Oil Company of California…

Everyone knows that consignment selling is a widely used method of distribution all over the country. By our decision today outlawing consignment selling if it includes a price limitation, we inject severe uncertainty into commercial relationships established in reliance upon a decision of this Court explicitly validating this method of distribution. We create, as well, the distinct possibility that an untold number of sellers of goods will be subjected to liability in treble damage suits because they thought they could rely on the validity of this Court's decisions.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Potter Stewart Potter Stewart Simpson v. United Oil Company of California…

Since the source of power over price by the patentee-consignor in General Electric was not his patent, and since the question of patent monopoly is not involved in this case, the patent cases cited by the Court are also singularly irrelevant to the issue here.↑ There is no reason to suppose that MR. J STICE HARLAN will be disqualified in any future case which may involve the question of the continuing validity of the General Electric rule.↑ The Department's views are not known, because they have not been sought.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature