In the 1915 case of Briggs v. United Shoe Machinery Company, the Supreme Court examined whether a patent license agreement that required lessees to use only supplies produced by the lessor was legal under antitrust laws. The plaintiff, Briggs, argued that this requirement constituted an illegal restraint on trade and monopolistic practices. However, the court ruled in favor of United Shoe Machinery Company. It held that such agreements were not inherently illegal as they could be justified by legitimate business interests like ensuring quality control or protecting a company's reputation for high-quality products. Therefore, unless there is evidence showing these restrictions have been used to monopolize trade or destroy competition unlawfully - which wasn't demonstrated in this case - they do not violate antitrust laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Briggs v. United Shoe Machinery Company, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against United Shoe was incorrect because it failed to consider the broader implications of its interpretation of antitrust law. He contended that while some aspects of United Shoe's leasing practices could be seen as monopolistic, they were not inherently harmful or illegal and should not have been condemned without further examination. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for ignoring evidence suggesting that these practices actually benefited consumers by allowing them access to high-quality machinery at affordable prices. Ultimately, Holmes believed that this case represented an overreach by the courts into matters better left to market forces and legislative regulation.