In the 1902 case of Glidden v. Harrington, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving patent rights and infringement. The plaintiff, Glidden, held patents for barbed wire fencing and accused Harrington of infringing upon these patents by manufacturing similar products without permission. The court had to determine whether or not Harrington's product was sufficiently different from Glidden's patented design to avoid infringement. The court ultimately sided with Harrington, ruling that his product did not infringe upon Glidden’s patents because it was distinct enough in its design and function. They reasoned that while both products were types of barbed wire fencing, they differed significantly in their construction methods and final form - differences substantial enough to fall outside the scope of Glidden’s patent protection. This decision reinforced an important principle in U.S patent law: a patent does not grant absolute monopoly over a general concept or idea but only protects against unauthorized replication of specific designs detailed within the claims made in one's patent application.

In the dissenting opinion for Glidden v. Harrington, 1902, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Glidden was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that Harrington had not infringed on any patent rights held by Glidden because he did not use or sell any patented invention without permission from its owner. They contended that merely making an invention does not constitute infringement unless there is also unauthorized use or sale involved. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes "use" under patent law and felt this broad interpretation could potentially stifle innovation and competition by allowing companies to monopolize certain technologies simply through ownership of patents rather than actual production and sale of goods using those patents.