The rule against contracts in restraint of trade and monopolies does not apply to contracts in reference to the production and sale of a patented article. It is the purpose of a patent to give the inventor a monopoly. It is a monopoly authorized by the governagree that none shall separately engage In the business for five years, held not invalid as creating a monopoly. Oakdale Mfg. Co. v. Garst, 18 R. I. 484, 28 Atl. 973, 23 L. R. A 639, 49 Am. St. Rep. 784. There can be no monopoly in anything but property, and news is not a subject of property until published and copyrighted, and hence a corporation engaged in gathering and transmitting news for publication cannot be compelled to furnish to a newspaper the same service extended to others. State v. Associated Press, 159 Mo. 410, 60 S. W. 91, 51 L. R. A. 151, 81 Am. St. Rep. 368. Contra, Inter-Ocean Pub. Co. v. Associated Press, 184 I11. 438, 56 N. E. 822, 48 L. R. A. 568, 75 Am. St Rep. 184. See "Contracts;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 116; Cent. Dig. §§ 542-552.
46 Emery v. Candle Co., 47 Ohio St. 320, 24 N. E. 660, 21 Am. St. Rep. 819 (candles); Cummings v. Stoue Co., 164 N. Y. 401, 58 N. E. 525, 52 L, R. A. 262, 79 Am. St. Rep. 655 (Hudson river bluestone); Cohen v. Envelope Co., 166 N. Y. 292, 59 N. E 906 (envelopes); Tuscaloosa Ice Mfg. Co. v. Williams, 127 Ala. 110, 28 South. 669, 50 L R. A. 175, 85 Am. St. Rep. 125 (ice); Arctic Ice Co. v. Franklin Electric & Ice Co., 145 Ky. 32, 139 S. W. 1080. Sec "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 116; Cent. Dig. §§ 542-552.
47 Wright v. Crubbs, 78 Ind. 487; Raymond v. Leavitt, 46 Mich. 447, 9 N. W. 525, 41 Am. Rep. 170; Samuels v. Oliver, 130 I11. 73, 22 N. E. 499. See "Gaming," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 11; "Monopolies," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 3-31.
48 Sampson v. Shaw, 101 Mass. 145, 3 Am. Rep. 327. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) $ 116; Cent. Dig. §§ 542-550.
ment. In upholding an agreement by a patentee to allow an association and its members the exclusive use and sale of inventions patented by him, it was said: "The owner does not possess his patent upon the condition that he shall make or vend the article patented, or allow others to do so for a fair and reasonable compensation. * * * Considerations which might obtain if the agreement were in regard to other articles cannot be of any weight in the decision of the questions arising upon an agreement as to patented articles." 49 Patents, however, confer no right upon the owners of several distinct patents to combine for the purpose of restraining competition and trade, and such a combination is unlawful.60
Contracts for the sale of proprietary medicines manufactured under a secret formula have been held by the United States supreme court not to be subject to the rules governing the manufacture and sale of patented articles, and contracts for the sale of such proprietary medicines, which fix the price of resale and impose other restrictions upon the purchaser, have accordingly been declared void.51