New Britain herald., 1924-10-20
STANDARD OIL CO.
 FILES AN ANSWER
Says Many Contracts Complain
 cd of Have Expired

Chicago, Oct. 2o.-Many contracts complained of by the government in it's suit started last June under the sherman Act against some fifty oil companies expired long before the suit was filed, the Standard oil com pany of Indiana set up in it's an- swer today. Texas company recent ly filed general denial of the charges.
 The licensing of one company to use the licenses of another was the result of patents overlapping so that some companies were threatening each other with infringement suits, said the answer. To obviate that situation, the answer set forth, it was agreed to adjust the controver- sies for use of gasoline Cracking" patents by licensing the companies, so called pooling agreements. They were not combinations in restraint of trade or commerce, as charged by the government, the answer as- serted, but on the contrary the Standard Oil company of Indiana "has endeavored to and has observ- ed in letter and spirit the laws of the United states of America"
 The defendant company, accord ing to the answer, owns g different valid United States patents for the cracking process. Early in its ex- perience in licensing other compan- ies to use its patents, the answer said, there were restrictive clauses in the contracts, as advised by its counsel for the protection of its busi- ness, but "all contracts containing the restrictive provision" about which the government complained expired more than six years before filing the suit, Its licensees now, the company contended, are wholly free of limitation as to quantity of production, place of sale or price,"
 The governments charge that the "cracked" gasoline was not patent able was denied by the answer, which set up that the "cracked" gasoline was something new and useful although in most characteris- ties similar to the Straight run" gasoline.
 The company believed that some of its licensees in using its pro- cesses have sold "cracked" gasoline in its territory in violation of their agreement in the contracts, but that it has never enforced the contract provision.
 After patenting its Burton crack irg process" in the United States, the company obtained a similar pat ent in Canada, the answer said. At that time the Canadian patent act of 1906 according to the answer, contained the para graph:
 If after the expiration of twelve months from the granting of a pat rnt, or on authorized extension of such period, the patentee or pat cntees .. . import or cause to be imported into Canada, the invention for which the patent is granted. such patent shall be void as to the interest of the person or persons so import ing or causing to be imported"
 Because Of that legal restriction, a corresponding restriction 10 protect its Canadian patents was inserted in its contracts, the answer set forth, and that the said statute so in ef- feet at the time Of the execution of the said contract continued in full force and effect in the Dominion of Canada until the first day of Sep tember 1923, that no occasion has arisen since September l, 1923, to modify or to change such contract, and it, accordingly. remains nomin- ally in effect as originally executed"
 The answer denied that the h. diana company is or has been a party to any pool or combination in restraint of trade. or has made any contracts restraining trade beyond its lawful rights under its patents. On the contrary, it aveTed, the company has voluntarily adopted the policy of exta 1ding its patent rights broadly 10 others, thereby greatly the quantity Of motor fuel produced and maintaining prices much lower than they would have been had it reserved its patented processes exclusively 10 itself, as it might lawfully have done.
 Il would take nearly 95 years for