Brief for appellees motion picture patents company and Edison manufacturing company (1913)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

itself solely to manufacture, and had disposed of itfi products through jobbers and dealers with wbom it did not directly compete. I told him that one of our com|)etitors, the Columbia Phonograph Ooiupany, had not followed this poh'cy, hut had attempted to enter the retail business, and in that way, had antagonized all of the johbei e and dealers with whom it had previously done business, and that if the manufacturers ex[)ecied to ultimately succeed they would liave to cultivate the goodwill of the exchanges by convincing them that the manufacturers were satisfied to do only the manufacturing business. I said that when the original Edison combination was formed, there were thiee manufacturers who were directly interested in the exchange business, but that we had convinced thetn that they should withdraw as quickly as possible from the exchange business, and they were attempting to do so. And I said that we had all agreed tliat we must make that a rule of conduct for the future, not to have a manufacturer go into the exchange business or take on a new licensee who was connected with the exchange business, and, as a result of that policy, the interests of the manufacturers iu the exchange business are piobably not more than 50 per cent, at the present time of what they were in the Spring of 1908, when the original Edison Combination was formed. I also pointed out to Mr. Lod.^e that entirely aside from antagonizing the exchanges and making them distrustful and suspicious, to permit a manufacturer to be in the exchange business was unfair to the other manufacturers who were not in the exchange business, because that particular manufacturer had an undue advantage in placing his product on the market through the exchanges in which he was directly interested, and that we felt that all of the maimfacturers ougiit to stand on the same bottom and compete entirely on quality " (Dyer, p. 355-6). Notwithstanding Mr. Lodge's assurance to Mr. Dyer that no further sales of stock would he made to exchanges or persons interested in exchange;^, the evidence conclusively shows that on the ver?) day on ivhich he gave that assurance negotiationswcrepending for the sale of alarge stock interest to M'tx Lewis; that such negotiationshad been pending since early in September (p. 524); that these negotiations were