Evening star., 1945-06-19

~, ,080 ,391, 1,179 Of them, with a cir.
culation Of 34,762,1 2,120, were under
joint contractual obligations not to
supply either AP or their own "sp5n-
taneous" news to any nonmember
of AP.
S. Under these terms, a new ap.
plicant could not have entered the
morning field in New York without
paying 81 49,, 2,142.73, and in Chicago,
$416,631 30. For entering the eve
ming field in the same cities it
would have cost s1,o95 ,003.2l, and
$595 ,77231, respectively.
6. "The bylaws of AP are in
effect agreements between the mem
bers: That one which restricts AP
to the transmission of news to mem
bers, and that which restricts any
member to transmitting 'spontane-
GUS news to the association, are
both contracts in restraint of COM
merce. They restrict commerce be-
cause they limit the members free
dom to relay any news to others.
either the news they learn them
selves, or that which they learn
collectively through AP as their
agent" United States v. Associated
Press, So F. Supp. 1862, 1868.
7. The District Court found that,
among all the news gathering agen-
cies in the United States, AP
ranked "in the forefront In public
and esteem" and that 1t
was "the chief single source OF news
for the American press, universally
agreed to be Of great Importance:
that the combination of AP owners
acted together for the purpose OF
using the news gathering facilities
o: the individual publishers and OF
the combination, which news was
made available to members and
denied to others; and that the re-
strictive bylaws had been observed,
carried out, and applied in practice.
The court declared that the con-
ditions which old members could
impose upon new applicants Tor
were plainly designed
in the interests Of preventing COM
petition" and that the requirement
Of payments from new members to
old members, were de-
signed to compensate competitors
for the loss in value of their men,
bership, arising out Of the appl-
cant's improved condition as COM
petitor." The court pointed out that
these restrictive provisions would
"act as deterrent" and might prove
a complete bar to the admission OF
Finding on Growth.
8. That finding is as follows. "The
growth of news agencies has been
fostered to some extent as result
Of the restrictions of the Associated
Press services to it's own members,
but other restrictions imposed by the
Press have hampered
and impeded the growth Of COM
peting news agencies and Of news
papers competitive with members
of the Associated Press"
The courts opinion, and its ind
ings as a whole show that the
other restrictions" found to have
hampered competition were those
relating to admissions to member
ship in AP and to restraints upon
a members freedom to sell his news.
8. United States v. Socony-Vac-
uum Oil Co., 80 U. S. $50, 225. See
also United States " Trenton Pot
teries Co., 273 U. S. 1872, 4o2; Fash
ion Originators' Guild of America,
Inc. ct al v. Federal Trade Com
312 U. S. 457, 1856; United
States v. Patten, 226 q. s. 525, SAB;
Paramount Famous Corp. v. United
States, 282 U. S. 80, Al; Standard
Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. /,
65-66.
10. The District Court found as
a fact that sit is practically i'm
possible for any one newspaper
alone to establish or maintain the
requisite for collecting
all OF the news of the world, or
any substantial part thereof; aside
from the administrative and organi-
zation difficulties thereof, the finan-
cial cost is so great that no single
newspaper acting alone could sus-
tain it."
II. ms and UP make so-called
asset value" contracts, under which,
If another newspaper wishes to OBJ
tain their press services. the new
conner shall pay to the competitor
holding the UP or ms contract the
stipulated asset value"
IL. Paramount Famous Corp. v
United States, supra. AZ, quoted
United States VS.. Colgate & Co,
$50 U. S. 800, BOT, to the following
effect: The purpose of the Sher-
man Act is to prohibit monopolies
contracts and combinations which
probably would unduly interfere
with the free exercise Of their right
by those engaged, or who wish tt
engage, in trade and commerce
in a word, to preserve the right OF
freedom of trade"
13. See E. G., U. S. 6. 2o1, 292,
as to farm co-operatives: Is U. S. c.
II, as to labor organizations. But
see also as to the latter, Apex Hos
iery Co. v. Leader, $40 U. S., 469,
487-498.
Trade Board Decision.
IA. 1t is argued that the decision
in Board of Trade v. Christie Grain
& Stock Co.. 1873 U. S. 236, requires a
holding that these arrangements are
consistent with the Sherman Act.
In that case, the Board of Trade
gathered quotations" Of the prices
on sales of grain for future delivery
and sold the information" under
agreements forbidding the pur-
chasers to reveal it.
The Board Of Trade filed suit to
prevent its purchasers from break
ing this agreement by transmitting
the statistics to a bucket shop or
place where they are used as a
basis for bets or illegal contracts"
p. 246.
1t was said in the opinion that
the statistics were in the nature Of
q trade secret" The opinion stated
that the boards collection of sta.
tistical information was entitled to
the protection Of the laws; that 1t
had q right to keep it to itself, and
that it did not "lose It's rights by
communicating the result to others,
even II many, in confidential rela.