Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by shmerl 1423 days ago
I don't get something. If formula is public, why can't any company start selling it without paying any royalties?

The ruling only applied to the ones who inherited the initial contract.

1 comments

Parts of the ruling:

"It may be noted that here the parties themselves made no reference to secrecy in either the 1881 or the 1885 agreements. The word "secret" is not used anywhere in either of them. It is true that I have assumed during this discussion that the plaintiff is correct in its contention that what Lambert bargained for was a "secret" formula. But that in *666 no way justifies the further assumption that he also bargained for continuing secrecy or that there would be failure of consideration if secrecy did not continue."

"Thus, I hold that under the agreements in suit plaintiff is obligated to make the periodic payments called for by them as long as it continues to manufacture and sell the preparation described in them as Listerine."

The judge recognized that it was not just the mere formula, but rather the brand name, that supports the value of the product and thus royalty agreement.

It's in J&J's best interest to sell under the brand name, which is the #1 in the world, and simply pay the royalties.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/1...