[2] The district court granted the Government's summary judgment motion because it concluded: That the defendants in combination controlled the market and had the ability to and did drive competitors from the business of manufacturing knitted fabric slip covers is abundantly clear from the record.

That the defendants in combination and cross-licensing created a situation in the industry which, particularly by agreement for joint action respecting the patents, effectively hindered newcomers in the field, is also established beyond peradventure of doubt.

All of these actions taken in concert constitute a clear violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Government has established to the satisfaction of the Court that the combination and conspiracy above referred to represents an unreasonable restraint of trade and commerce among the several states of the United States in the manufacture and sale of ready-made furniture slip covers, is unlawful, and in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Further, the Government, in the opinion of the Court, has effectively demonstrated that the defendants combined and conspired not only to restrain trade unreasonably but also to monopolize trade and commerce among the several states of the United States in the manufacture and sale of ready-made furniture slip covers, in direct violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

The Court also feels that by documentary proof the Government has established that the defendants have used patent rights unlawfully in instituting, effectuating and maintaining the aforesaid combination and conspiracy which likewise constitutes a clear violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

The defendants were Joseph A. Krasnov, Samuel Krasnov and Seymour Krasnov, partners in the business of manufacturing and selling ready-made furniture slip covers, doing business under the trade name of Sure-Fit Products Co.; Comfy Manufacturing Company, another manufacturer and seller of ready-made slip covers; Fred E. Katzner, President and CEO of Comfy; and Arthur Oppenheimer, an inventor and patentee of a patent involved in the case.

[7] The Government sued the defendants— Joseph A. Krasnov, Samuel Krasnov, Seymour Krasnov, Sure-Fit Products Co.; Comfy Manufacturing Company, and Fred E. Katzner, President and CEO of Comfy; and Arthur Oppenheimer, The defendants sought to defend the price-fixing charge on the basis of United States v. General Electric Co.[8] The court found the facts of the case quite different from those of the General Electric case, and rejected the argument: The price arrangement was not executed in a manner so that its purpose can be said to have been the protection of the patentee's monopoly with, of course, the necessary incidental benefits accruing to the licensee; but rather it was used as a two-edged implement to cut equally for the benefit of both the licensor and licensee.

There is no question that the agreement potentially tended to eliminate competition and was an unreasonable restraint on trade within the meaning of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Co. v. United States[10] Although the present facts were not completely identical, the court said, " I think the evil which the court there struck down exists here, namely, (1) the veto power over licensing rights granted to a licensee and (2) the contractual arrangement which created the power to restrict competition by requiring joint consent before others could be licensed."

The court concluded that the high degree of coordination between the patentees and in particular the joint defense fund and the veto power over licenses were an unlawful extension of the patent grant.