Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1915-08-25
EASTMAN KODAK
CORPORATION IS
HELD MONOPOLY
Judge Hazel Finds That Bur
den of Showing Alleged IL
legal Acts Were Proper Was
Not Sustained.

far NoHglEo JOURNAL SPECIAL LEASED wiar1
Buffalo, N. " Aug "a THE East
man Kodak company Of Rochester is
"a monopoly in restraint of trade. In
violation Of the sherman anti-trust
law. according TO "a decision handed
down here late today by Judge John
X. 'hazel of~the United States district
court The decision grants the de-
PENDANT company opportunity TO adopt
q pian for the abroEatiOn of the IL
legal monopoly on the first day Of
the November term.
Judge Hazel in his opinion stated
that while it appeared that no ire
mediable hardship would result from
"a separation Of the present business
into two or more separate companies.
it was not ga this time intended to i'm
dictate either dissolution, division or
reorganization
1T no doubt is possible" he said
THAT an adequate measure Of relief
might result from enjoining the un-
fair practices Of the terms of sale
agreements and from a separation Of
the business. but the defendants
should have an opportunity To present
20 the court on the first day of the
1875 November term "a plan for the
ahrogation Of the illegal monopoly I'M
duly and unreasonable restraining in
terstate trade and commerce. or II
am appeal from this interlOcutory de-
cree is taken to the supreme court
and this decision is affirmed such
plan j. TO be presented within sixty
days from the filing of the mandate"
Complaint Filed In 1913.
The bill was filed June 9. 1913,
against the Eastman Kodak company
of Now Jersey, Eastman Kodak com
pany Of New York. George Eastman,
Henry A. strong, Walter $. Hubbell.
and Frank S, Noble, all of Rochester
The bin alleged substantially that
from 1902 TO 1906 the Eastman COM
pany Of New York intentionally mon
opollzed the business Of manufactur-
ing and selling camera plates. photo
graphic paper and film i'm the United
States, by acquiring control Of twenty
competing concerns which were aft
erward dissolved, the plants disman-
tied and their business removed to
Rochester
That the Eastman Kodak company
of New Jersey acquired many stock
houses engaged in different states i'm
selling Photographic supplies By the
defendants apd their competitors.
Got Paper Agencies.
That the defendants with the in |
tcntion. of monopolizng the importa- /
ton, acquired the exclusive right to
sell in the United States and Canada !
raw paper stock from European pa /
per mills-a necessity in the menu- /
faeture Of Photographic papers,
That from 1899 10 1905 an Eastman /
products were sold hy dealers under |
restrictions and with discounts which /
stfled competition in 1905 those
discounts We're discontinued and sub
seauenty so-called terms of sale were /
adopted limiting dealers to the handl- f,
Ing exclusively of Eastman products /
under penalty of revocation of the /
right to deal ia any OF the Eastman /
commodities.
by the acquisition of properties and /
enforcement OF The terms Of sale Il ,
was alleged the defendants acquired /
the largest percentage of the trade, /
unlawfully restrained such trade and |
ot tanned an Illegal monopoly
Restraint of Trade Denied.
The defendants I'm their answer de-
MED restraining trade or competition !
ar eneaging IN "a monopoly and claim I
ed their status was a result of the /
creation and development within their /
plants of products of a superior quail 1
ity and of the manufacture Of cam 1
era In which they were the conceded |
pioneers
The opinion reviewed in detail the
acquisition of the control OF raw pa
per and of competing companies and
stated that il was difficult to avoid I
the conclusion that these acts were
for the purpose of suppressing com
petition and IN furtherance of an in
lention 90 form q monopoly In SUBJ
sanitation OF this II was pointed out /
that in nearly every instance the con-
voyances contained restrictive cove
nants prohibiting the officers Of the
acquired concerns from re-cntefins I
the business for periods ranging from
five To- twenty five years, thus serving
AS said in the tobacco case, "As per-
petual barriers 10 the entry of 9th |
ers
Judge Hazel dismissed the govern
ments claim that contracts for the |
manufacture of motion picture film
entered into between the defendants /
aud the Motion Picture Patents COM
pany were violations of the statute.
The court quoted the great gains
and profit from the year 1919 when !
amouRted Go Sl5.63S.5b l.33, or about
III per cent on total sales of mnnu-
facture and the price paid by the con-
sumers II Is undisputed the court
held that the Eastman company cone
trolled approximately II per cent or
so per cent of the entire trade and
had accordingly obtained monopoly 4
Trndc Is Restrained.
"The burden rested upon the de-
PENDANTS to prove that this was acc
complished by lawful methods judge
Hazel said. and after careful consid-
Grafton have concluded that such
burden was not borne bui that on
the contrary the government mas
shown affirmatVey that interstate
trade and commerce have been UNI