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 #:
00032
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.

26 Of course, when we come to consider combinations in restraint of interstate commerce, the power of Congress to declare such combinations unlawful is derived from the commerce clause of the Constitution. The source of power is different from the source in the case of the State, but the exercise of the power in each case arrives at the same result, i. e., prohibition of restraints of trade or monopolies. Under the Patterson decision, the distribution of patented articles in intrastate commerce is subject to the police power of the State. In the same way the distribution of patented articles in interstate commerce is subject o the regulations of^oe»£s by virtue of the commerce clause. [Mr. Moon's brief at the bottom of p. 86 inaccurately states that we attempt to interpret the Sherman Act as an exercise of police power, and it makes the same mistake in considering the argument made for the Government in TJ. S. v. Stand. San. Mf. Co.] VII. The fact that defendants leased films instead of selling them constitutes no defense — the form is immaterial. The moment that a patented article enters interstate commerce it becomes subject to the rules of commerce applicable to restraint of trade the same as any other commodity. Any combination which unreasonably interferes with the free flow of commerce is a violation of the Sherman Act, regardless of the form that may be employed in any particular