Yes you could. The point of the order was Kodak owned the majority of the film making and developing in the US. Preventing them from selling process paid mailers was an attempt to get some competition in the market.
From:
Dead Link Removed
"The markets for color film and color photofinishing in 1954 were indisputably controlled by Kodak" (J.A. 75). Kodak had over 90% of the amateur color negative film market in 1954 (J.A. 214). Kodak did the photofinishing on all of its own color film (J.A. 220-21), because it controlled the technology, and because its photofinishing was included in the cost of the film (J.A. 234).(9)
9. The customer or retail dealer mailed the exposed film to Kodak for processing, and the prints were returned by mail in two to three weeks (J.A. 219-20). Kodak did the photofinishing of color film in large laboratories, supervised by engineers, due to the sensitivity of the process (J.A. 217-19). It refused, however, to process film produced by any other company, because its equipment could be contaminated by different chemicals they used (J.A. 220-21).
See, on the one hand, I don't like big business when you look at the little guy struggling, on the other hand, Kodak started as a small company and grew itself with (somehow) good practices, if it weren't a good company at the time, people wouldn't buy it. So the anti-trust stuff kinda annoys me, if they offered their product with both a process payed, and film without processing as options, I see no issue with that, they give you both options, if they are the only game in town that's because they are probably producing a better product than the other guys, which is good for consumers. Any lab can refuse to process other peoples products if it contaminates their labs, like how some labs won't cross process E-6 in C-41 chemistry because they fear it will throw things off. And it's a legit claim, they shouldn't be responsible for other film companies chemistry. On top of that, since the other film companies didn't have to worry about their product being developed by kodak, they could have their own labs do it, its' better for them, and in fact could offer their film and process payed at a lower rate than kodak prices and therefore get better sales. If they aren't capable of surviving under those conditions where they are actually getting customers to process their own film, then they shouldn't be in business, survival of the fittest. If on the other hand they were forcing labs that were non-kodak labs to refuse other film, that's a different story. Mom and pop should be able to develop whatever film they want at their local lab. But a warehouse lab owned by kodak, they can do what they want. Just like Dwayne's Photo can do what they want, they decided they were done with Kodachrome and shut their machine down (I was a cool machine I saw it in person [and shot pictures of it on Kodachrome64] heh) then that's their choice. However if they were doing things like "you can only sell Kodak film at your store or we wont sell to you" then that's NOT ok, but having free market choice on who to buy and have film developed with, that's the companies business.
I'm sure some of what I mentioned that I believe is NOT ok was part of that anti-trust from the sound of it, but the process payed bit I don't agree is an issue.
Thanks for learnin' me
