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.
14
PART III.
manufacturers controlling 85 per cent of the commerce in enameled ironware combined to destroy competition, fixing prices and tenns of sale of the ware and establishing penalties for violation of the agreement. The defendants urged as justification that the restraints alleged by the Government to be unlawful were proper restrictions lawfully imposed by the owner of a patent on a tool used in the manufacture of the Avare who had issued licenses under the patent to tlie manufacturers. They asserted also a purpose to improve the quality of the ware sold. The court accepting, arguendo, the statement of defendants of their inducement and intent, sustained the contentions of the Government. Mr. Justice jMcKenna said :
(48) The agreements in the case at bar combined the manufacturers and jobbers of enameled ware very much to the same purpose as the association of manufacturers and dealers in tiles combined them in Montague & Co. V. Lowrij (193 U. S., 88), whicli combination was condemned by this court as offending the Shcannan law. The added element of the ])atent in the case at bar can not confer immunity from a like condenuiation, for the reasons we have stated. And this we say without entering into the consideration of the distinction of rights for which the ( Jovernmeiit contends betw(H'n a ])at('nted article and a ])atented tool used in the manufactnrc of an unj)atented article, l^ights conferred by ])atents are iiuhnnl very delinite