Before we can agree to this, however, we must understand what monopoly is. Briefly stated, it is the power to charge more than a competitive price for a commodity or service. This power can be permanently secured by the favor of Government, and in no other way. An agreement between individuals cannot accomplish it, since such agreements, even if they include all individuals in interest, which is impossible, or at all events inconceivable, would infallibly be broken. The only way such agreements may be made effective is for Government to make powerless, or nearly so, the potential competitive elements or individuals in interest. This it does in several ways, or to be explicit, chiefly in three ways. By Land Laws, Tax Laws, Laws Regulating (or that fail to regulate) the use of the steam highways of the country. I know of no other source of monopoly unless it be our patent laws. But these being—originally at least—rewards of invention, the injury results from their misuse.[4] Even the misuse of patent laws is not one of the chief potent influences in the perpetuation of monopoly. But without, in most cases, adding to the power of monopoly, which derives its strength from other causes, it puts in the hands of the great combinations the power to arrest progress. The value to society of an invention is in its use. Under present misuse of patents, inventions are held out of use and are often bought up and destroyed for the purpose of depriving competitors of the use of like improvements, or because such inventions would often reduce the machinery in present use to the value of old iron. Clearly, if industrial progress is to be made to yield its full results, some change in our patent laws is imperatively called for. Were the law of competition allowed to work freely, the use of such inventions, even under present patent laws, would be determined largely by the law of self-preservation. For the sources we have indicated are also the sources to a degree of the patent monopoly. In a competitive market for the use of an invention the inventor would be less likely to part with his invention, even under the present patent system. Where the bidding is artificially restricted the inventor sells at a disadvantage. Monopoly has the inventor at its mercy. But however this may be, nothing less than the free use of an invention to everyone willing to pay a royalty to the inventor for its use will do justice to the inventor and meet, at the same time, the interests of the great public and the necessary demands of industrial progress.