Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and brief in support thereof (1916)

20 58 Exhibit B. 59 sumption or resale within the United States, or any territory thereof * * * on the condition, agreement or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies or other commodities of a cqmpetitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce." This Act was not regarded as applicable either in the District Court, or in this Court, in the case of Victor Talking Machine vs. Straws, supra, because that case Avas decided upon a demurrer to the bill upon the face of which no substantial restraint of competition or monopoly in anj^ line of commerce appeared. Here, however, the testimony shows that the complainant has a monopoly under its patents of projecting machines so that if no films not manufactured by complainant can be used 60 upon these machines, the complainant will obtain an absolute monopoly of the film business in spite of the fact that its patent on films has expired. If the prohibitions of the Clayton Act mean anything at all this case falls Tvnithin them and the restrictions as to the use of films other than complainant's with the projecting machines are, therefore, void. Indeed, the Report of the Judiciary Committee of the House concerning the Clayton Act shows that its purpose is to reach the film monopoly. A portion of this report, quoted by Judge