In the 1934 case George v. Victor Talking Machine Co., the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Victor Talking Machine Company, a manufacturer of phonographs and records. The plaintiff, Mr. George, had purchased one of their machines which came with ten free records as part of a promotional offer. However, he was not satisfied with his selection and demanded that he be allowed to exchange them for others at no additional cost or receive compensation for what he considered an overcharge on the machine itself due to being forced into buying unwanted records. The court held that there was no obligation by the company to allow such exchanges or provide compensation since it was clearly stated in their advertising materials that customers could choose from only certain selections offered by them without any option for substitution or return.

In the dissenting opinion for George v. Victor Talking Machine Co., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent monopoly on phonograph records was inconsistent with previous court rulings and contrary to public interest. He contended that patents should only be granted when they promote innovation, not merely protect commercial interests. In this case, he believed there was no evidence of any new or useful discovery by the defendant company deserving of exclusive rights protection under patent law. Furthermore, he suggested that granting such monopolies could stifle competition and hinder technological advancement in the industry as it discourages other manufacturers from making similar products even if they use different methods or materials. Thus, Justice Stone disagreed with his colleagues' interpretation of what constitutes an invention worthy of a patent and their understanding of how these legal protections affect market dynamics.