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.
I'Airi" VII.
105
four suits were l)r(>ii<;lit on that reissue. (\ I, 3134-:ii:58.) These weiv the suits ai^'aiust Schnei(l(»r, Pathe I^'reres, Steiucr, and Mdics. In this period (d' t'(Mir years not one of those suits was pressed to a hearing-, ahhou<;li if the patent had been sustained it wouhl liave vested in the owner of the patent complete donnnation over the niotionpieture -dvt. Xo action could more clearly indicate the defendants' want of contidence in this patent than their failure to press these cases for hearing. The defendants in the four cases had combined to make the Schneider case a test case. We refer the court to docket entries in that case. (VI, 3137, 3138.) The case was commenced November 23, 1904. In a period of four years two witnesses were examined, and a stipulation was entered into that four individuals, if called, would have testified as they did in the case of Edison v. American Mutoscope d' Biograpli Co. That was all that was done in four years.
After the Biograph Co. refused to join the Edison Licensees, February, 1908, tlie Edison people invoked the reissue patent Xo. 12192 as a means of patent persecution. They brought a great number of suits under this patent ; so many suits, in fact, that the court issued an order for them to show cause why an order should not be entered prohibiting them from bringing further suits until one suit as a test should have been disposed of. (VI, 3141, fol. 3.) See infra under head relating to Edison Licensees and Film Service Association. (Pait VIIT, pp. 120 et seq.)