The Waterbury Democrat., 1932-11-21

phone and Telegraph company, and Western Electric Co. Inc, was dis missed. The decree affects only the General Electric company, Westinghouse Electric and Manu- facturing company and RIGA.
 General Electric company and Westinghouse, who now own q con- trolling stock interest in RIGA, ac-. cording to the decree. are to divest themselves of their stock Holdings.
 They must dispose of a half of their holdings of the common stock of RIGA by immediate dis stockholders and the remainder of
 In the meantime they are forbid den to impose any limitations upon the power of their stockholders freely to transfer or dispose of tho shares of RIGA stock received by them.
 Within two and q half years RIGA Is supposed to change or settle it's international agreements and re- port to tho court what has been done. If the agreements haven't been changed satisfactorily the case will proceed on these con- tracts. N
 The General Electric and Vest inghouse are enjoined from ac- quiring stock in the RIGA in the fu-, ture and from being represented on it's board of directors, except that Owen D. Young, chairman of the board of General Electric, and An drew w. Robertson, chairman of the board of Westinghouse, may remain as directors of RIGA during Q transition period of five months.
 The decree also enjoins the de- fendants and their subsidiaries from further recognizing or en- forcing the exclusive provision of their patent cross licensing agree mcnt.
 The government has complained that these cross licensing agree ments were made to eliminate com petition among the defendants in violation of the anti-trust laws.
 Government attorneys nlso as- serted that the pooling of more than 1000 patents applicable in the radio field and the granting to RIGA of the exclusive right to H. cense the use of the pool. patents in that field hampered The right of third persons to engage in tho ra- dio business.
 Further. the defendants were en- Jointed from entering into any ar- rangement among themselves or with third persons in any way iim- iting or restricting the freedom of any of them or the freedom of third persons to use their own pa- tents or patent rights or to license others hereunder, where the pur- pose of such arrangements Is to re- strain trade uniawfuily.
 Agreement for tfie division Of fields or territories, or tho use of other simiiars devices unlawfully to restrain trade also are forbid den.
 Defendants were given .,crlod of two and Q half years in which to secure modification or changes of their contracts with foreign governments or corporations in order to meet federal government objections to them.
 It was provided in the decree that the issue as to the foreign contracts shall be tried by the court, if those contracts remain unchanged at the end of that time.
 The defendants maintained that they had not violated the anti trust laws and consented to the decree on the conditions that this should not constitute an admis- sion by them or on indication that they had violated any law of the United States.
 The government stood upon It's assertion that the facts alleged In it's petition were true and that the defendants had violated the anti- trust laws.
 In recommending that the court answer the decree. representatives of tho attorney general stated that in their opinion the decree cm- bodied all the relief necessary to meet the objections in the plead ings Of the government.