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 #:
000127
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Books
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.

I'Ai; | \ II. 115 s('\'('r;i I times loijkcd into tiic L;it!i;im p.-ilciit in the hope tlint I niiulit he .-ihlc to |)('l'sil;i(lr inysclt' that it possessed wiliic, hut I (mhiM not sec anytliini; in it. I^'n rt licrniorc, when Mr. LatiianTs ap|)li('at ion was jx'iidin^ in the Patent Office lie beeanic inx'olvcd in interference witli Tlionias Arniat, and tli(^ Court of A])])(»a]s of the District of Columbia decided in that interference that Anuat and not Latham was the tirst inventor. As a result of this controversy all that Latham was able to obtain from the Patent Office was a very limited patent, and even as to this limited subject matter T reo:ard the patent as utt(a"ly invalid. ^ * ^ , ^' Finally, I observe that in this pamphlet the statement is made that the Edison Co. and others ' have been compelled to adopt the camera of the Latham Patent Xo. 707,934,' which is the patent previously referred to. Tt is sufficient to say as to this statement that the Latham patent relates to a projectino: machine and in no way refers to a camera.'' On cross-examination ^Ir. Dyer testified (Dyer, III, 1669, fol. 1) : Q. Isn't it true, AFr. Dyer, that prior to the formation of the Patents Co. and the merging of the ditferent patents in that holding company you, as general counsel for the Edison Co., had scoffed at the claim made under the Latham patent ? A. I had sneered at it.