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

65 the manner indicated by the cases hereinbefore cited. He can not impose upon a purchaser a condition which is unreasonable. He can not impose an unreasonable condition, for the purpose of enabling him to violate the antitrust act. It appears from the evidence in this case that the license restriction so imposed on the sale of the Yankee watch is not for the purpose of securing the benefits of the patented improvements therein, but in order that the plaintiffs may protect the trade-mark or trade name under which they sell the watch. Such a condition was not imposed ' ' to protect the use of the patent or the monopoly which the law conferred upon it." It is an unreasonable one, is beyond the power of the plaintiffs to impose upon the defendant, and is void as to him. (4) Blount Mfg. Co. v. Yale & Towne, 166 Fed., 555: Decision by District Judge Brown, of Massachusetts, who said, page 562: Combinations between owners of independent patents, whereby, as part of a plan to monopolize the commercial field, competition is eliminated, are within the Sherman Act, for the reason that the restraint of trade or monopoly arises from combination, and not from the exercise of rights granted by letters patent. (Italics ours.) (5) Waltham Watch Co. v. Keene, 202 Fed., 225: This is a long and well-considered opinion by District Judge Ray, of New York State, on the