Brief for the United States (1914)

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.

I'AIM Mil. he assimicd tli.il the success of tlic scNcral iiT(>ii])f. \v;is due lo tlicir |ยป.-it('iits li;i\ inL; hcen the hcst. As, l>y ihc iiitcrprctat inn of the iii(lictincnt below, ( HK") p'ed. I\*ej)., 7)^.)\ and by the admission in arunnient Ixd'oiw* us, they did n(>t conipctc with one aiiotlier, it is hard to sec why the coMecti\'e business should be any worse than its coiii})()iient pai'ts. It is said that from seventy to eit^lity per cent, of all the shoe-maelunery ))usiness was put into a single hand. This is inaccurate, since the machines in (|uestion are not alleged to be types of all the machines used in making shoes, and since the defendants' share in commerce* among the States does not appear. But taking it as true, we can see no greater objection to one corporation manufacturing seventy per cc^nt. of tliree non-competing groups of patented machines collectively used for making a single product than to three corporations making the same proportion of one group each. The disintegration aimed at by the statute does not extend to reducing all manufacture to isolated units of the lowest degree. It is as lawful for one corporation to make every part of a steam engine and to put the machine together as it would be for one to make the l)oilers and another to make the wheels, lentil the one intent is nearer accomplishment than it is by such a juxtaposition alone, no intent could raise the conduct to the dignity of an attempt. (See Virtue v. Creanwnj Package Mflj. (\)., ante, p. 8; Swift c(' Co. v. United States, 196 U. S., 375, 396.)