United States of America v. Motion Picture Patents Company and others (1914)

3 the patentee's business. Whereas, as a matter of fact, not one of the conditions was imposed upon the use of any patented article in the normal and usual development of the patentee's business, but each condition took its birth in a combination between the owners of the several patents. As an instance of the above, we respectfully direct the attention of the court to the examination of the restrictions contained in the brief filed by Mr. Melville Church, beginning page 94 et seq. Throughout Mr. Church's recital of the restrictions and his discussion of the agreements there is not a suggestion or an intimation that these restrictions were entered into by combination of the various owners. His discussion proceeds upon the assumption that one company owning all these patents was imposing the various patent restrictions. He overlooks the manner in which the Patents Company acquired the patents on December 18, 1908. There is no reference to the way in which the Patents Company obtained the patents or to the meetings of the manufacturers. In two recent cases of the Supreme Court under the antitrust law the court pointed out that acts and contracts which under ordinary circumstances when done by individuals may be lawful become unlawful when done by many. These cases are the Anthracite Coal case (reviewed in our main brief, pages 266 et seq.) and the Pacific & Arctic Navigation Co. case. (See our main brief, pages