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'AKI \IV.
297
I'lic r.'ill.'icv ol' their (MuMciit ion \\;is Inw^r since declared l)v the Supreme ( '<nirt. The statute is its own uicasure (d' ri<;lit aud wrouu'. I>y eiiju'tiii^ tlie Shcruiau Act ( '()iii»'rcss adoj)te(l as the ccoiioinic policy of the count ry t he |)rinciple of t'l'cc competition and dcchii'cd that the (low of trade in the channels of connnerce sliall not he undnly interfered with. It preferred the evils of competition to the daiijj^ers of monopoly. Conseqnently testimony introduced for the pur[)ose of showincj that some economic benefits may possibly have resulted from the formation of the Patents Co. or the General Film (\). is wholly irrelevant and can have no bearing on the 'question whether or not competition has been suppressed, the natural and normal flow of commerce unduly obstructcnl, and the statute violated. Such evidence has no place here, for the court has no authority to consider it. The proper forum for its presentation is the Hall of Congress as an argument for t^lie repeal or modification of the statut(\
Jn view, however, of defendants' insistence upon this point and their determined effort to justify the formati(m of tlu^ unlawful licensing arrangement by testimony introduced in order to show that alleged economic advantages have resulted, we quote ])elow at some length from opinions of the Supreme Court.
In a very recent case, the so-called *' Bathtub Trust case (226 U. S., 20, 49) the Supreme Court WTut so far as to accept as true, for the purposes of