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

Record Details:

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.

66 subject of the patentee attempting to control resale prices. We particularly direct the attention of the court to that part of the opinion beginning at the bottom of page 238 in which Judge Ray discusses the law relating to combinations of manufacturers operating under the protection of a patent. (6) Thornton's work, entitled "A" Treastise on the Sherman Antitrust Act," printed by William H. Anderson & Co., Cincinnati, in 1913: Chapter XV of this work, pages 615 to 652, brings together many cases relating to the Sherman Act and the patent laws. It will be found useful for purposes of reference. In United States v. Great Lakes Towing Co., 208 Fed., 733, Circuit Judges Warrington, Knappen, and Dennison, of the Sixth Circuit, held that the Great Lakes Towing Company, a combination formed for the express purpose and with the express intent of eliminating the naturally existing competition in interstate commerce and of monopolizing and restraining such commerce by the employment of unusual and abnormal methods of business, was in violation of the antitrust act. The court said, page 741, that it may — be regarded as well settled that a combination formed for the express purpose and with the express intent of eliminating natural and existing competition in interstate commerce and of monopolizing and restraining such interstate commerce by the