Meaning: This quote refers to a legal decision made by the Supreme Court regarding the sale of patented mimeograph machines and the accompanying ink. It highlights the issue of whether a seller of a patented product can legally require the purchaser to use only a specific accompanying product, even if that product is not patented. The decision, which was not made by the full court and was only concurred in by four justices, has implications for intellectual property rights and the limitations that sellers can place on the use of their patented products.

The case raises important questions about the intersection of patent law, antitrust law, and the rights of consumers and purchasers. It also touches on the broader economic implications of allowing sellers to control the use of their products after they have been sold.

The concept of patents and intellectual property rights is integral to understanding the context of this quote. A patent grants its holder the exclusive right to produce, use, and sell an invention for a limited period of time. This exclusive right is intended to incentivize innovation by allowing inventors to profit from their creations. However, this exclusivity also raises questions about the extent to which a patent holder can control the use of their patented product once it has been sold to a consumer.

In the case mentioned in the quote, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the seller of a patented mimeograph machine could require the purchaser to use only the seller's ink in the machine, even though the ink itself was not patented. This raises questions about the limits of a patent holder's control over the use of their product and whether such restrictions are anticompetitive or anti-consumer.

The fact that the decision was not made by the full court and was only concurred in by four justices indicates that there may have been dissenting opinions or differing interpretations of the law. This lack of a unanimous decision suggests that the issue is complex and may have far-reaching implications for patent law and consumer rights.

The quote also attributes the statement to John Clark, an economist. This attribution suggests that the issue at hand is not only a legal one but also has economic implications. Economists often analyze the effects of legal decisions on markets, competition, and consumer welfare. In this case, the decision regarding the use of patented mimeograph machines and ink could have economic repercussions, particularly in terms of market competition and consumer choice.

The implications of the decision are not just limited to the specific case of mimeograph machines and ink. They extend to the broader question of how much control patent holders should have over the use of their products after sale. If sellers are allowed to impose restrictions on the use of their products, it could have implications for consumer choice, competition, and innovation.

In conclusion, the quote highlights a recent decision by the Supreme Court regarding the use of patented mimeograph machines and the accompanying ink. This decision raises important questions about the limits of a patent holder's control over the use of their product and the potential economic and legal implications of such restrictions. It also underscores the complex interplay between patent law, antitrust law, and consumer rights. As such, the decision has implications that reach far beyond the specific case at hand and could have broader implications for patent law and consumer welfare.