"BATH TUB" TRUST.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1390, 16 March 1912, Page 5

"BATH TUB" TRUST.

» JURY DISAGREES. Ry Talesnph—Pren Asiecl&ties— (Rec. Maroh 15, 9.55 p.m.) New York, Maroh 16. The jury in the "Bath Tub" Truet trial at Detroit has disagreed. AN INGENIOUS COMBINATION. Saul the New York "Outlook":—Among the "trust" prosecutions now instituted by the Federal Department of Justice is that of the so-called "bath-tub trust." The evidence presented by the Government in this case discloses an apparent attempt to use tho monopoly granted by the patent laws as a screen for an illegal monopolistic combination. Under our patent laws as interpreted by tho Courts it .is unquestioned that a patentco ma)- fix the price at which the patented article is sold. It is also a debatable question whether several owners of different parts of an article may legally pool their patents for tho purpose of controlling tne price at which the completed article is to be sold. But in the "bath-tub" case the patent, which is used as a device to justify a combination for the purpose of fixing prices and eliminating competition, is a patent, not upon the article manufactured by the combination, but upon an insignificant tool used in its manufacture. The prosecution is brought against sixteen corporations engaged in the manufacture of all kinds of enameled iron ware used in the plumbing of a house, such as' bath-tubs, washbasins, kitchen, sinks, etc. Karlj last year, after a long series of conferences among the different manufacturers of the enameled ware, the patents on a little tool used in the manufacture were assigned to a young man, apparently without capital, named Wnymoutn. Immediately thereupon this young man granted a license to each of the manufacturing companies for tho use of these patents, under a contract which determined the prices at which tho manufacturer should sell the completed enameled waro product and all the terms and conditions of sale, which prescribed the form of contract under which tho manufacturer should fell to the jobber and the prices at which the jobber should resell, and which provided that no manufacturer should sell to any jobber who handled independent goods, or who refused to sign a contract. Severe penalties were prescribed for failure to live up to the terms of this license agreement. Complete control of wholesale, jobbing, and retail prices of the enameled ware was the result.