United States v. Sidney Winslow
| Citation | 57 L.Ed. 481,227 U.S. 202,33 S.Ct. 253 |
| Decision Date | 03 February 1913 |
| Docket Number | No. 620,620 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, Plff. in Err., v. SIDNEY W. WINSLOW, Edward P. Hurd, George W. Brown, William Barbour, and Elmer P. Howe |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Solicitor General Bullitt for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 203-207 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Charles F. Choate, Jr., Frederick P. Fish, Malcolm Donald, and William A. Sargent for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 207-214 intentionally omitted]
This is a writ of error to determine whether two counts in an indictment, as construed by the district court, charge offenses under the Sherman act of July 2, 1890, chap. 647, 26 Stat. at. L. 209, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3200. They were held bad, on demurrer, by the district court. 195 Fed. 578. The two counts allege substantially the same facts; the first laying them as a combination in restraint of the trade of the defendants themselves, the second, as a conspiracy in restraint of the trade of others, shoe manufacturers.
The facts alleged are as follows: For the last twenty-five years practically all the shoes worn in the United States have been made by the help of machines, grouped as lasting machines, welt-sewing machines, and outsole-stitching machines, heeling machines and metallic fastening, machines, there being a large variety of machines in each group. (These machines, of course, are not alleged to do all the work of making finished shoes.) There is a great number of shoe factories, and because the machines are expensive and the best of them patented, the manufacturers have had to get them principally from the defendants. Before and up to February 7, 1899, the defendants Winslow, Hurd, and Brown, through the Consolidated and McKay Lasting Machine Company, under letters patent, made 60 per cent of all the lasting machines made in the United States; the defendants Barbour and Howe, through the Goodyear Shoe Machinery Company, in like manner made 80 per cent of all the welt-sewing machines and outsole-stitching machines, and 10 per cent of all the lasting machines; and the defendant Storrow (against whom the indictment has been dismissed), through the McKey Shoe Manufacturing Company, made 70 per cent of all the heeling machines and 80 per cent of all the metallic fastening machines made in the United States. The defendants all were carrying on commerce among the states with such of the
shoe manufacturers as are outside Massachusetts, the state where the defendants made their machines.
On February 7, 1899, the three groups of defendants above named, up to that time separate, organized the United Shoe Machinery Company, and turned over to that company the stocks and business of the several corporations that they respectively controlled. The new company now makes all the machines that had been made in different places, at a single new factory at Beverly, Massachusetts, and directly, or through subsidiary companies, carries on all the commerce among the states that had been carried on independently by the constituent companies before. The defendants have ceased to sell shoe machinery to the shoe manufacturers. Instead, they only let machines, and on the condition that unless the shoe manufacturers use only machines of the kinds mentioned, furnished by the defendants, or if they use any such machines furnished by other machinery makers, then all machines let by the defendants shall be taken away. This condition they constantly have enforced. The defendants are alleged to have done the acts recited with intent unreasonably to extend their monopolies, rights, and control over commerce among the states; to enhance the value of the same at the expense of the public; and to discourage others from inventing and manufacturing machines for the work done by those of the defendants. The organization of the new company and the turning over of the stocks and business to it are alleged to constitute a breach of the Sherman act.
It is to be observed that the conditions now inserted in the leases are not alleged to have been contemporaneous with the combination, or to have been contemplated when it was made. The district court construed the indictment as confined to the combination of February 7; that, is, simply to the merger of the companies, without regard to the leases subsequently made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Line Materials Co
...of patents on noncompeting machines has been held not to be, per se, a violation of the Sherman Act. In United States v. Winslow, 227 U.S. 202, 217, 33 S.Ct. 253, 255, 57 L.Ed. 481, Mr. Justice Holmes, in a unanimous opinion of the Court, 'The machines are patented, making them is a monopol......
-
LG Balfour Company v. FTC
...Transparent Wrap Machine Corp. v. Stokes & Smith Co., 329 U.S. 637, 67 S.Ct. 610, 91 L.Ed. 563 (1947); United States v. Winslow, 227 U.S. 202, 33 S.Ct. 253, 57 L.Ed. 481 (1913). We agree with petitioners that this general principle of patent-copyright law is equally applicable to trademark ......
-
American Refining Co. v. Gasoline Products Co.
...U. S. v. New Department Mfg. Co. (D. C.) 204 F. 113; Blount Mfg. Co. v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 166 F. 557; U. S. v. Winslow, 227 U. S. 217, 33 S. Ct. 253, 57 L. Ed. 485; Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U. S. 194, 25 S. Ct. 3, 49 L. Ed. 154; Swift & Co. v. U. S., 196 U. S. 375, 25 S. Ct. 276......
-
United States v. General Motors Corporation
...combination of competing units is essential to conspiracy under the Sherman Act. Among other cases counsel cite United States v. Winslow, 227 U.S. 202, 33 S.Ct. 253, 57 L.Ed. 481; United States v. United Shoe Mach. Co., 247 U.S. 32, 38 S.Ct. 473, 62 L.Ed. 968; United States v. General Elect......
-
Patents
...Cir. 2010) (misuse); L ICENSING G UIDELINES , supra note 1, at § 5.5. 5. 2007 IP R EPORT , supra note 1, at 64; United States v. Winslow, 227 U.S. 202, 217 (1913) (although pool members controlled 70 percent of the market, pool Patents 223 not unlawful where pooled patents were complementar......
-
Antitrust and Platform Monopoly.
...ANTITRUST L.J. 11, 16-17 (2009). (123.) See, e.g., United States v. United Shoe Mach. Co., 247 U.S. 32 (1918); United States v. Winslow, 227 U.S. 202 (1913). The earliest decisions were in the state courts. E.g., United Shoe Mach. Co. v. Kimball, 79 N.E. 790, 791-92 (Mass. 1907) (assessing ......
-
Criminal Enforcement of Section 2 of the Sherman Act: An Empirical Assessment
...The district court sustained demurrers to some counts of the indictment, which the Supreme Court affirmed in United States v. Winslow , 227 U.S. 202 (1913). The case was subsequently withdrawn by the prosecution, which filed a nolle prosequi. 2022] CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT OF SECTION 2 767 • Un......
-
Digital Platforms and Antitrust Law
...bid will be biased downward by the ease of replication and the low probability of copyright liability. 29. See U.S. v. Winslow, 227 U.S. 202, 218 (1913) ("It is as lawful for one corporation to make every part of a steam engine, and to put the machine together, as it would be for one to mak......