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 #:
000130
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.

118 PART VII. A. I think the Biograph Co. were doing that. Q. Who had acquired the patent about that time ? A. I don't remember when they acquired the patent, but I think they acquired it shortly before that time. Q. That is, shortly before the date of that interview ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Had the patent been infringed by everyone since its issue in 1902 ? A. So far as I know it had. That is, when I say " everyone," you understand I mean people in the moving-picture business. J. A. Berst, of Pathe Freres, admitted that he published statements in 1908 which he now asserts were untrue. On direct examination he said (J. A. Berst, III, 1774, fol. 4) : I published articles in the trade papers informing the trade in general that the Latham patent was of no value, * * * but, in fact, I knew it was not true. On cross-examination by Government counsel he said (IV, 1955, fol. 4-1958) : Q. On direct examination you testified: ^^I ])ublished even articles in the trade papers informing the trade in general that the Latham patent was of no value; that we knew of other means to project films without infringing on their patents, and that when the time came we would use those means, but, in fact, I knew very well it was