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

Record Details:

Title:
United States of America v. Motion Picture Patents Company and others
Date:
1914
Publisher:
Washington, D.C. : United States. Government Printing Office
Volume:
United States of America v. Motion Picture Patents Company and others
Leaf #:
00012
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Books
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
December 21, 2023
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.

6 In the Shoe Machinery decision the Supreme Court did not have before it for consideration the lawfulness of the numerous interlocking restrictions contained in the licenses issued by the United Shoe Machinery Company. We know of no decision in which interlocking restrictions of the character here present and adopted in the manner disclosed by the evidence have been held lawful by the courts. This significant statement (which however was omitted from the elaborate quotation and discussion of the case in defendants' brief, p. 340) was made by Mr. Justice Holmes in the Shoe Machinery case, 227 U. S., 216 (see our main brief, p. 280) : It is to be observed that the conditions now inserted in the leases are not alleged to have been contemporaneous with tlie combination or to have been contemplated when it was made. * * * The validity of the leases or of a combination contemplating them can not be passed upon in this case. As we have pointed out in our brief, the combination here under consideration contemplated from its very inception the numerous tying and interlocking restrictions which were adopted. These restrictions were the very essence of the combination. During the argument defendants' counsel conceded that the license agreements were the result of conferences, saying that all important business transactions are the result of conferences. The fact that the license agreements and all the restric