Brief for the United States (1914)

Record Details:

Title:
Brief for the United States
Date:
1914
Publisher:
Washington, D.C. : United States. Government Printing Office. Office of the Public Printer
Volume:
Brief for the United States
Leaf #:
00018
Language:
English
Collection:
Books and Government & Law
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library
Sponsor:
{"Media History Digital Library","Richard Koszarski",Domitor}
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
November 08, 2023
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

6 PAET I. (11) All of the rules governing the disposition of the product in eonunerce have been oppressively enforced and were being enforced at the time this suit was brought. We have stated above some of the things which the defendants accomplished in respect to the commerce in the positive film. It is obvious that these restrictions are unlawful under many decisions of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, it becomes necessary to examine the defense. The defense is that the forni of combination, which is a licensing arrangement under patents, has made lawful acts which it is conceded would have been unlawful in the absence of the patents. We maintain (1) the form of combination can not atfect the result — the patent laws offer no justification for violating the Sherman Act, even in respect to commerce in patented articles; (2) the commerce restrained is conmierce in an unpatented article, namely, positive motion-picture film. Therefore, conceding that defendants' own valid patents used in the production and manufacture of the unpat(^nted positive film, the ownership of such patents does not authorize the defendants to restrain by means of patent licenses the commerce in the unpatented positive fihu. Even if the court should hold that the so-called negative film ])atent (No. 12192) covers the positive film, we maintain tliat a combinati(m restraining tiade in i)afente(l articles is prohibited by the Sliei'iiian Act.