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

Page scan 00036 from United States of America v. Motion Picture Patents Company and others

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 #:
00036
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:
August 01, 2024
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.

30 with the title. That makes no difference. He could not have retained title for the express purpose of accomplishing a result which would have been an unlawful restraint of trade had he parted with title. We very respectfully maintain that the position of the court is controlled by the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit in National Harrow Company v. Hench, 83 Fed., 36, cited in our main brief at page 28. Judge Moon suggests that that case is not applicable, for the reason that it dealt with suppression of competition while the patents in this case were not competing patents. Even if there be the difference he suggests between the cases, to which we do not agree, we maintain that a decision holding that patents may not be used to suppress competition is a direct holding to the effect that patents may not be used to accomplish other forms of restraint of trade. Unreasonable suppression of competition between manufacturers in interstate commerce is merely one of many forms of restraint of trade. Numerous cases of the Supreme Court have presented no suppression of competition, but clear and unreasonable interference with commerce. Such cases were the Cotton Corner case, TJ. S. v. Patten, 226 TJ. S., 525 (main brief, pp. 271-274) ; TJ. S. v. Pacific & Arctic Navigation Co., 228 U. S., 87 (main brief, pp. 280-282) ; TJ. S. v. Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers' Assn., 234 U. S.,