At the close of the Government's case, the district court granted a motion for acquittal on the ground that the facts established did not constitute violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act without evidence that what was obtained by defendants by their alleged agreements was more than a normal and reasonable reward to a patentee.

The Government then proceeded to sue the defendants civilly using the record in the criminal case, by stipulation, as its evidence.

[5] The defendants denied the Government's charges of a combination and conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of trade and to monopolize interstate trade in lockbolts, but had not put in their evidence; on that record, the district court granted defendant's motions to dismiss the case.

There was some disagreement about what actually had been said, counsel for the Government (Assistant Attorney General Turner) suggesting to the Court in oral argument that the so-called waiver came only from erroneous notes taken by the judge's law clerk.

[7] The district court determined "upon the evidence submitted that the case at bar is in all material respects the same as and ruled by the decision in United States v. General Electric Co.

In the more recent effort, United States v. Huck Manufacturing Co., a procedural error in the lower court hampered the Government's position.

Apparently our confidence is shared by members of the bar who 'have occasion to draw up patent licenses, since we seem to be having some difficulty in finding an appropriate case in which to present the question to the Supreme Court.