Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/567

 STAR SALT CASTES CO. V. ALDEN. 555 �one can acquire any of the information conveyed by the other. It is difficult, therefore, to see upon what ground it can be held that one is a copy of the other. �The real matter of the plaintiff's complaint is, not that the defend- ant has copied his oard, — that would occasion him no loss, but the contrary, for it would be a gratuitous advertisement of his paints, — but that the defendant, in advertising his wares, has adopted the same method pursued by him in advertising his wares, and his claim amounts in substance to claiming the exclusive right to employ that method in advertising. Such a right cannot, in my opinion, be ac- quired under the copyright laws. �The bill must be dismissed, with costs. ���Stae Salt Castbr Co. v. Alden. �(Cireuit Court, D. Maaaachusetts, February 23, 1882.) �L Patents — Improvemeittb — Salt Bottle. �Apatent f or an improvement on a prier invention iainfrine;edhy animprnve- ment on a later patent if it contains the distinguishing cliaraoteristic of the prior invention. �In Eqnity. �F. P. Fish, for complainants. �T. E. Barry, for defendant, �LowEUi, C. J. The plaintiffs own the Eichardson patent, No. 71,643, for an improved salt bottle. The defendant makes a bottle under the later patent of White, No. 198,564. No evidence has been produced to impeach the validity of the Eichardson patent as an improvement upon the salt bottles in use at its date. They were Crossman's and Beach's; and Eichardson improved on the for- mer, and the defendant on the latter. Both appear to be patent- able improvements, but that of the defendant contains the distin- guishing characteristic of Eichardson's, which is a movement of the pulverizer up and down when the bottle is used in the ordinary way. �Decree for complainants. ��� �