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

31 600 (main brief, pp. 291-295) ; Steers v. U. S., 192 Fed., 1; Loewe v. Lawler, 208 U. S., 274. Therefore, a decision which holds that patents are no justification when the restraint of trade is accomplished by the suppression of competition is an authority for the proposition that other forms of restraints of trade may not be brought about by the use of patents in the form of a license arrangement. Since the formation of this combination and its entrance upon active operations in January, 1909, the defendants through the Patents Company have brought hundreds of replevin suits. They have cut off hundreds of exhibitors and rental exchanges from supplies of film. These facts are set out in detail in our main brief and, therefore, we shall not here attempt to review the evidence in that regard. It is always to be remembered in considering the facts in this case that the term " your license is cancelled " is the euphemistic equivalent for " you can secure no more supplies of film from 10 manufacturers." The Rubber Tire cases have never been the law in this circuit. The Supreme Court refused to follow them in the Bathtub Trust case although chiefly relied on by defendants in that case. It is true, as defendants assert in their brief, that a patentee may withhold from the public the use of his patented article. Another patentee may do likewise in respect to a patented article owned 79466—15 3