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 #:
00017
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.

11 would-be jobbers of tile were not admitted to the jobbers' association unless they at all times carried stock worth $3,000. Tf they did not belong to the association they could not obtain tile from the manufacturers. The court, opinion by Mr. Justice Peckham, said this was an unlawful restraint of interstate trade. II. The evidence in the case of the Keystone Watch Case Co. contrasted with the evidence found in this record. Since the arguments in this case the three circuit judges of this circuit have decided the case of United States v. Keystone Watch Case Company. The facts of that case are in striking contrast to the facts here presented. The history of the General Film Company differs from that of the Keystone Watch Case Company in two important particulars : First, in its manner of growth ; and, second, in its conduct. As to growth and expansion, in the Keystone case there was present no intent to absorb all competitors. In his opinion Circuit Judge McPherson reviews the separate acquisitions made by the Keystone Company pointing out the character of the business done by each company so acquired. The acquisitions had taken place over a long period of time and were unrelated to each other. They were small companies, most of them having