Brief for the United States (1914)

Record Details:

Title:
Brief for the United States
Date:
1914
Publisher:
Washington, D.C. : United States. Government Printing Office. Office of the Public Printer
Volume:
Brief for the United States
Leaf #:
00024
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Books
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library
Sponsor:
{"Media History Digital Library","Richard Koszarski",Domitor}
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
June 06, 2024
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.

12 PART II. competition, were declared unlawful. In the same case the court said that a corporation 0T\Tied jointly by a number of defendant railroads in order to prevent the construction of a competing railroad was an unlawful instrumentality to prevent competition. In the Cotton Corner case {U, S. v. Patten, 226 tJ. S., 525), a conspiracy between persons not engaged in commerce to run a corner in cotton and thwart the usual operation of the laws of supply and demand was held to be within the act. In United States v. Pacific tf Arctic Raihvay cf Navigation Co. (228 U. S., 87), the court held unlawful a combination between a number of noncompeting carriers, forming a continuous line of transportation, against a carrier competing with one of the parties to the combination on part of the through route. In Bauer v. O'Donnell (229 U. S., 1) the court made the same ruling in respect to patented articles that it had made in the Dr. Miles Medical Co. case {supra) in respect to unpatented articles and in Bohhs-Merrill Co. v. Straus (210 U. S., 339) in respect to copyrighted books, holding that a patentee may not limit the price at which future retail sales of the patented articles may be made. In Straus v. American Publishers' Association (231 IT. S., 222) the court declared that the copyright act does not authorize the making of an agreement respecting commerce in unc()])yright(Ml l)()oks,