With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Corp., 440 F.Supp. 1237 (D.N.J.1976). There the patentee had granted the licensee the right to make and sell its product in specialty form only, but not in bulk for sale to others. The court reasoned that a patentee’s right to shut off all competition must necessarily include the lesser right to restrict the exercise of the granted privilege so long as the patentee does not attach a condition that enlarges his monopoly beyond that given by the patent statute and the patent itself. See United States v. E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 118 F.Supp. 41, 226 (D.Del.1953) (upholding license which limited the licensee’s output to a specific quantity), aff’d 351 U.S. 377, 76 S.Ct. 994, 100 L.Ed. 1264 (1956); United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265, 62 S.Ct. 1070, 86 L.Ed. 1461 (1942) (<HOLDING>); Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309

A: holding that the statutes 30 day provision is mandatory and may not be extended and dicta that it may not be extended by release from incarceration
B: recognizing that enhancement requires control over a participant in the scheme not only control over the scheme itself
C: holding that the deadmans statute should not be extended by judicial construction to cases not clearly within its terms
D: holding invalid scheme by which patentee extended patent monopoly by requiring pricefixing arrangement between itself and each of its licensees
D.