In the case of Furst and Thomas, Partners v. Brewster et al., 1930, the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights. The plaintiffs, Furst and Thomas, were partners who held patents for certain types of machinery used in knitting mills. They sued Brewster et al., alleging that they had infringed upon their patents by using similar machinery without permission or payment. However, the defendants argued that they had not violated any patent laws because their machines were different from those patented by Furst and Thomas. The court ruled in favor of the defendants after examining both sets of machinery closely. It found significant differences between them which meant that no infringement had occurred despite some similarities in function and design. This ruling reinforced an important principle within patent law: even if two inventions serve similar purposes or have comparable designs, this does not necessarily mean one infringes on another's patent rights unless it uses identical methods or mechanisms to achieve its purpose.

In the dissenting opinion for Furst and Thomas, Partners v. Brewster et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Court regarding patent rights. He contended that a patent owner has exclusive control over his invention during its term and can sell it under any conditions he chooses, including limiting its use to certain geographical areas or restricting resale prices. The majority's ruling would undermine this principle by allowing third parties to interfere with these contractual arrangements without providing adequate compensation to the patent holder. Furthermore, Justice Stone disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "public interest" in antitrust law, arguing that it should not be used as a justification for infringing upon private property rights unless there is clear evidence of monopolistic practices or other abuses.