Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States
1945 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 386 (1945), was a patent-antitrust case that the Government brought against a cartel in the glass container industry.[1] The cartel, among other things, divided the fields of manufacture of glass containers, first, into blown glass (allocated to Corning Glass Works) and pressed glass, which was subdivided into: products made under the suction process (allocated to Owens-Illinois Glass Co.), milk bottles (allocated to Thatcher Mfg. Co.), and fruit jars (allocated to Ball Bros. plus a fixed production quota for Owens-Illinois, and Hazel-Atlas Co.).[2] The trial court found the cartel violative of the antitrust laws and the Supreme Court agreed that the market division and related conduct were illegal. The trial court required royalty-free licensing of present patents and reasonable royalty licensing of future patents. A divided Supreme Court reversed the requirement for royalty-free licensing as "confiscatory," but sustained the requirement for reasonable royalty licensing of the patents.[1]
Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States | |
---|---|
Argued November 15–18, 1943 Reargued October 9–10, 1944 Decided January 8, 1945 | |
Full case name | Hartford-Empire Company v. United States |
Citations | 323 U.S. 386 (more) |
Case history | |
Prior | 46 F. Supp. 541 (N.D. Ohio 1942) |
Subsequent | Petition for clarification granted, 324 U.S. 570 (1945). |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Roberts, joined by Stone, Reed, Frankfurter |
Concur/dissent | Black |
Concur/dissent | Rutledge, joined by Black |
Douglas, Murphy, and Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |