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 #:
00073
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.

67 employment of unusual and abnormal methods of business, constitutes undue restraint or suppression, and so offends against the antitrust act. (Standard Oil Co., supra; America?! Tobacco Co., supra; Beading case, supra.) And at page 744: The fact that the towing and wrecking service has been improved under the towing company's administration can not legalize the combination if otherwise unlawful. Not only do good motives furnish no defense to a violation of the antitrust act (Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. United States, 226 U. S., 20; 33 Sup. Ct, 9; 57 L. Ed., 107), but we have no right to assume that the unsatisfactory conditions existing in 1899 could not have been eliminated by lawful and normal methods. Has the towing company acquired this domination of the towing and wrecking service by normal methods alone; or, as otherwise stated, has it unduly restrained or suppressed competition? We think it clear that the towing company's domination does not result from normal methods alone. Whatever may be the views of individual economists, under the Federal statutory policy normal and healthy competition is the law of trade, and such evils as may result from such competition must be considered less than those liable to follow a complete unification of interests and the power such unification gives.