This inherent-right doctrine was expressly rejected a few years later, however, in "Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co." In that case, Justice Holmes (who had been in the majority in the "A.B. Dick" case), now in dissent, argued that because the owner of a patented teapot "may keep his device wholly out of use . . . I cannot understand why he may not keep it out of use unless the licensee, or, for the matter of that, the buyer" will agree to buy his tea from the patent owner. But the majority rejected this doctrine of patentees' "inherent rights." It explained: