Arizona republican., 1915-08-25
EASTMAN KODAK 4
(Continued from Page One)

peting manufacturers and dealers by the company's terms of sale, which prohibited dealers selling Eastman goods from selling the goods of any other manufacturer, and fixed retail prices of the goods; by the operation of retail or stock houses at ostensi- ble competing establishments, and by marketing, through the Defender Company, a Rochester corporation, certain film as if it were an independ- ent product. Injunctions were sought against those practices.
 investigation of the company's methods by the department of justice began under Attorney General Wick ersham but the filing of a suit was delayed pending negotiations for q settlement of the issues involved When Attorney General McReynolds came into office the kodak suit was the first to be instituted in applying the principle denying patentees the right to fix resale price of articles, which had been declared by the su- preme court
 To the allegations of the govern ment the company replied in it's an swer and in court that dissolution of the company was impossible and would work great harm inasmuch as the company had not been formed by the joining together of several inde- pendent corporations into one great holding corporation, but that it had grown by the gradual purchase of patents and other corporations and their amalgamatiOn as an organic part of unified business. In all cases, the company contended, the manu- fracture of articles that were pur- chased was continued as part of the Eastman manufacturing process and each purchase, it is contended vas made not for the purpose of driving 2 competitor out of business ia fact, MT. Eastman one the witness stand declared. that the company had never in its history purchased the business of a competitor-but for the purpose of adding to the Eastman business a new product for the sake of improving it and for the sake ulti- mately of completing the line of goods manufactured by the Eastman company
 Improvements made on these pur- chases and inventions made in the Eastman laboratories, it was con-
 
 that it was by their meria alone, and rot by any methods of marketing, that the kodak corporation and busi ness had assumed it's present size and influence.
 The company denied in it's bill that lt controlled 72 per cent of the busi- Less in photographic supplies, fixing a proportion at about GA per cent; brought competitors Of it's various branches to testify to the amount of business they did, to show that it's competitors were doinG good busi- ne@s and that It was possible for dealers to secure goods from other sources than from the Eastman com pany; it denied that it's terms of sale had imposed restraints on retail deal CTS or that they had been prevented from buying competitors goods, and, finally, contended that whenever it continued the manufacture of goods purchased from others, under the name which they had borne before they were purchased, this was well known to the trade
 The government, in it's testimony, sought to bring out that Thomas Blair of NorthbOro, Mass and not George Eastman. invented the first camera and that amateur in fact. had existed be- fore the Eastman company existed Stress was laid in the governments contentious on intent rather than actual accomplishment of monopoly. It was contended, for instance that the kodak company cornered the for eign markets for raw paper so that it was impossible for other manu- facturers in this country to secure the kind of paper best suited for purposes It was as serted, also, that the Eastman com pany low controls 95 per cent of the business of making motion picture film ir the United States.
 The case of the government was in charge of Mark Hyman of New York Ss special assistant attorney general. and John Lord O'Brien of Buffalo. l United States attorney for the west ern district of New York. The case for the company was handled by l James J. Kennedy of Phillip, Sawyer. 1 Rice & Kennedy of New York; Will | liam s. Gregg, who was special as- sistant attorney general for the gov crnm"nt in it's prosecution of the | United Shoe Machinery company, and l $. Wallace Dempsey of Lockport | Sessions of the trial were held all l -crnately in Buffalo and Rochester.