ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Sec. 8.-Powers of Congress

Cl. 7.-Post Offices

mination as to the existence and character of any alleged obstructions, and if such are found to exist or threaten to occur, to invoke the powers of those courts to remove or restrain such obstructions.

In re Debs, 158 U. S. 599.

Felonious Entry of Post Office

66

The object of section 5478, Revised Statutes, providing that any person who shall forcibly break into or attempt to break into any post office, or any building used in whole or in part as a post office, with intent to commit therein larceny or other depredation," etc., is to protect the Postal Service of the United States and to secure buildings used for such purposes from felonious entry with the criminal intent defined in the statute. It is this feature of the crime which gives the Federal Government the right to punish such offenses under the powers granted by the Constitution.

Considine v. U. S., 112 Fed. 342.

See also

Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 537.

Tampering With Mail Before Manual Delivery

It is within the power of Congress to make it a criminal offense for anyone to open a letter after it has passed from the actual control of the post-office officials and agents and before manual delivery to the person to whom it was directed.

U. S. v. McCready, 11 Fed. 225.

Delegation of Power to Postmaster General

The ordinary rule of construction of Government powers would have led to the conclusion that Congress, being charged with the duty of establishing post offices and post roads, could not delegate such duty to a branch of the executive department of the Government, but the policy of the Government from the time the general post office was established has been to delegate the power, to designate the places where the mails shall be received and delivered, to the Postmaster General.

Ware v. U. S., 4 Wall. 632.

U. S. v. Barlow, 132 U. S. 271.

Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U. S. 51.

See also

Hunt v. U. S., 257 U. S. 125, as to mail-carriage contracts.

Powers of the States

Robbing the Mail

The offense of robbing the mail on the highway is cognizable as highway robbery under State laws, although made punishable under those of the United States.

Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 34.

U. S. v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 485.

Sec. 8.--Powers of Congress

Liability of Railroad for Injury to Postal Clerk

Cl. 7.-Post Offices

State statute making a railroad company liable for injury to a railway postal clerk as if he were an employee of the railroad and not as a passenger does not conflict with the power of Congress to establish post offices and post roads.

Martin v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 203 U. S. 284.
Price v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 113 U. S. 221.

Mail Trains

Statute providing that all regular passenger trains shall stop at stations, etc., and requiring a fast mail train to turn aside. from the direct interstate route and run to the station in Cairo. and back again in order to receive and discharge passengers at that station is an unconstitutional obstruction of the mails.

Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois, 163 U. S. 142.

Act requiring every regular passenger train running wholly within the State to stop at county seats to take on and discharge passengers is not an unconstitutional interference with the transportation of the mails.

Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U. S. 427.

International Bridge

Facts that bridge when built, as a railroad bridge only, was devoted wholly to international commerce and that act of 1874 declared it a lawful structure and established post route, did not supplant authority of State to require addition of foot and carriage ways.

International Brdg. Co. v. New York, 254 U. S. 126.

Clause 8.-COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS.

The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Copyright and Patent Right

In General

No authority exists for obtaining a copyright beyond the extent to which Congress has authorized it. A copyright can not be sustained as a right existing at common law; but, as it exists in the United States, it depends wholly on the legislation. of Congress.

Banks v. Manchester, 128 U. S. 252.

See also

Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U. S. 339.

Stevens v. Gladding, 17 How. 451.

Holmes v. Hurst, 174 U. S. 85.

American Tob. Co. v. Werckmeister, 207 U. S. 284.

Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591.

As Applied to Moving-Picture Dramatizations

The copyright act of Congress (Rev. Stat., sec. 4952, as amended), giving to authors the exclusive right to dramatize

Sec. 8.-Powers of Congress

Cl. 8.-Copyrights and Patents any of their works, is valid as applied to pantomime dramatization by means of moving-picture films.

Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros., 222 U. S. 55.

The public presentation of a dramatic composition, not printed and published, does not deprive the owner of his common-law right, except by the operation of statute. At common law, the public performance of the play is not an abandonment of it to the public use.

Ferris v. Frohman, 223 U. S. 424.

Extent of Power

The power granted to Congress by this clause "is domestic in its character and necessarily confined within the limits of the United States."

Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How. 195.

The law as amended in 1891 permits foreign authors to secure a copyright in the United States when the government of the country of which they are citizens grants the benefit of copyright to citizens of the United States on substantially the same basis. as to its own citizens. In the case of foreign books printed in the English language, however, the type must be set in the United States.

Modern American Law, Vol. XI, p. 156.

See also

Stevens v. Gladding, 17 How. 451.

Ager v. Murray, 105 U. S. 130.

Shaw v. Cooper, 7 Pet. 319.

Banks v. Manchester, 128 U. S. 252.

The power to protect writings and inventions refers to fruits of intellectual labor and does not extend to the protection of trade-marks. It is for Congress to determine for what time and under what circumstances protection shall be granted. While rights are to be secured for but a limited time, Congress may extend the term upon the expiration of the time originally specified and in doing so protect the rights of purchasers and assignees, and this may be done by special act. Congress may modify rights under an existing patent, provided vested property rights are not thereby impaired.

Trade-mark Cases, 100 U. S. 94.
Higgins v. Keuffel, 140 U. S. 431.
Evans v. Jordan, 9 Cranch 199.

Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. 549.
Bloomer v. Millinger, 1 Wall. 350.

Eunson v. Dodge, 18 Wall. 416.
McClurg v. Kingsland, 1 How. 206.

The language of the clause limits Congress to the protection of "useful" inventions. "Invention" implies originality, novelty, the finding out, contriving or creating something which did not exist before. The utility of a device can not entitle one to a patent; however useful it may be, if not new it is not patent12703-S. Doc. 157, 68-1-18

Sec. 8.-Powers of Congress

Cl. 8.-Copyrights and Patents

able. An invention must be the product of the inventor's mind and not the result of mere mechanical skill; but a mental conception not reduced to definite physical representation is not an invention.

Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 549.
O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 119.

Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. 20.

Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 177.

Aron v. Manhattan Ry., 132 U. S. 90.

Busell Trimmer Co. v. Stevens, 137 U. S. 433.

Magin v. Karle, 150 U. S. 392.

Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 20 Wall. 507.

Phillips v. Detroit, 111 U. S. 608.

Smith v. Nichols, 21 Wall. 118.

Packing Company Cases, 105 U. S. 572.

Collar Co. v. Van Dusen, 23 Wall. 563.

Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 356.

King v. Gallun, 109 U. S. 101.

Weir v. Morden, 125 U. S. 108.

Potts v. Creager, 155 U. S. 608.

Clark Thread Co. v. Willimantic Linen Co., 140 U. S. 489.
Wicke v. Ostrum, 103 U. S. 469.

The Tremolo Patent, 23 Wall. 518.

Hildreth v. Mastoras, 257 U. S. 27.

The law authorizing the grant of patents for designs was intended to encourage the decorative arts and contemplated appearance rather than utility; but utility is an element for consideration in determining the validity of such a patent. Patents for designs, like other patents, must show originality and inventive faculty.

Gorham Co. v. White, 14 Wall. 524.
Smith v. Whitman Co., 148 U. S. 678.
Eclipse Mfg. Co. v. Holland, 62 Fed. 465.

Distinction Between Copyright and Letters Patent

The description of an art in a book, though entitled to the benefit of copyright, lays no foundation for an exclusive claim to the art itself. The object of the one is explanation; the object of the other is use. The former may be secured by copyright. The latter can only be secured, if it can be secured at all, by letters patent.

Baker v. Selden, 101 U. S. 105.

Right of Government to Use a Patent

Letters patent for a new invention or discovery in the arts confer upon the patentee an exclusive property in the patented invention which can not be appropriated or used by the Government itself without just compensation any more than it can appropriate or use without compensation land which has been patented to a private purchaser.

James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 358.

See also

U. S. v. Palmer, 128 U. S. 271.

Hollister v. Benedict, etc., Mfg. Co., 113 U. S. 67.

Sec. 8.-Powers of Congress

Cammeyer v. Newton, 94 U. S. 234.

U. S. v. Burns, 12 Wall. 252.
Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 16.

Exclusive Power of Congress

Cl. 8.-Copyrights and Patents

No State can limit, control, or exercise the power given by this clause.

Woollen v. Banker, 2 Flipp. (U. S.) 33.

From this grant of power it does not follow that Congress may, from time to time, as often as they think proper, authorize an inventor to recall rights which he had granted to others or reinvest in him rights of property which he had before conveyed for a valuable and fair consideration.

Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. 549.

The Constitution and acts of Congress relating to patents are alone the sources governing the rights and remedies of patentees. U. S. v. American Bell Tel. Co., 32 Fed. 591, reversed in 128 U. S. 315.

Appeals from Commissioner of Patents

Act of Congress conferring the right of appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia from the decisions of the Commissioner of Patents is not unconstitutional as conferring executive power upon a judicial body.

U. S. v. Duell, 172 U. S. 576.

To Promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts

This power is given not generally but only as a means to this particular end; hence it expressly appears that Congress is not empowered by the Constitution to pass laws for the protection or benefit of authors and inventors except as a means to "promote science and useful arts."

Martinetti v. Maguire, 1 Deady, 216.

See also

Higgins v. Keuffel, 140 U. S. 431.

Bleistein v. Donaldson Lith. Co., 188 U. S. 249.

Kendall v. Winsor, 21 How. 328.

Specifications are to be construed liberally, in accordance with the design of the Constitution and the patent laws of the United States, to promote the progress of the useful arts and allow inventors to retain to their own use not anything which is matter of common right but what they themselves have created.

Winans v. Denmead, 15 How. 341.

Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. 240.

One who is employed and paid by another to develop a process and machinery for manufacturing a specified product, and who patents an invention made by him in the course of the employment, holds the patent for his employer.

Standard Parts Co. v. Peck, 264 U. S. 52.

The rule that a reissue patent, expanding the patentee's original claims, will be invalidated by a delay of two years in applying for it unless special circumstances be proven justifying

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »