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

12 made watch movements, and only two or three having been engaged in the making of watchcases in competition with the Keystone Company. Accordingly, on the facts the Keystone case is strikingly different from the Harvester case for the Harvester Company had been formed for the express purpose of taking over simultaneously the business of five companies, previously competing, doing over eighty-five per cent of the business in the United States in harvesting implements. Judge McPherson says in his opinion (p. 13) : A merchant may without offense add one department to another as his business prospers or his ambition expands, for the size and the varied character of his enterprise do not in themselves violate the antitrust act. Size does not of itself restrain trade or injure the public; on the contrary, it may increase trade and may benefit the consumer ; but if the power given by the volume of a particular business is improperly used to injure either a competitor or the public, or if such power evidently tends toward the injury of either, the mischief either done or threatened is condemned by the statute. On the other hand, the General Film Company had been formed for the express purpose of acquiring the business of all the rental exchanges handling the films of the ten licensed manufacturers. This is proved by the minutes of the General Film Company. (See main brief, pp. 148-151 and 157-163.) The General Film Com