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.
296
PART XIV.
Part XIV.
THE ECONOMIC POLICY DECLARED BY CONGRESS IS THAT THE FLOW OF TRADE IN THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE SHALL REMAIN FREE AND NATURAL, AND THAT PRICES SHALL BE DETERMINED UNDER COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS. THE UNDUE INTERFERENCE WITH THE NATURAL COURSE OF TRADE OR THE UNDUE SUPPRESSION OF COMPETITION BY COMBINATION VIOLATES THIS POLICY AND IS CONTRARY TO THE STATUTE. THE PRIMARY MOTIVE OF THOSE ENTERING INTO A COMBINATION CAN NOT DETERMINE ITS LEGALITY.
Defendants stoutly deny all manner of purpose to restrain or monopolize trade or to interfere with the normal course of commerce, and strenuously urge that benefits to the public have resulted from the formation of the licensin^^ arrangement the lawfulness of which is to be determined by the result in this suit. Their allegations of good intent we deny.
It is elementary that the lawfulness or unlawfulness of a combination of competing concerns or of a combination obstructing the natural and normal flow of commerce does not depend upon the primary intent or moti^ e of the parties forming it. Otherwise, the actual obstruction to commerce or the destruction of competition would become immaterial. Necessary consequences are presumed to have been intended and the lawfulness of defendants' actions must be determined by the direct results.
Upon a miscoiiceptioii of ruudamental law defendants have built their entire defense. (See Ans. Pat. Co., fols. 126-127, and fols. 17()-180.)