Brief for the United States (1914)

Record Details:

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.

242 PART XI. The following letters of the Patents Co. show that for a long time after this suit was commenced in August, 1912, the Patents Co. prohibited theaters using its service from using any pictures of the independents : Patents Co. to Imp Theater, Uniontown, Pa., September 14, 1912. (II, 868.) Patents Co. to R. Solz, Pittsburgh, Pa., November 21, 1912. (II, 1116.) Patents Co. to Xovelty Theater, Wichita, Kans., December 5, 1912. (II, 1242.) Patents Co. to C. W. Boyer, Hagerstown, Md., December 23, 1912, to January 22, 1913. (II, 10201022.) Patents Co. to J. M. Ensor & Co., Little Rock, Ark., June 20, 1913. (II, 1138.) See Rosenbluh (I, 363, fol. 2) ; William Fox (II, 699, fol. 1) ; Sawyer (II, 740, fol. 2). Marvin testified, January 15, 1913, that the exhibitors at that time were still paying $2 a week royalty. (I, 26, fol. 4; see also I, 49, fol. 4.) Some of the jjrojecting machines had been sold by the Edison Co. without conditions attaching to the sales long before the Patents Co. was formed (Marvin, I, 28, fol. 2), })ut these were required to pay a license fee also. In United States v. Freight Ass'n (166 U. S., 290, 307) the defendants objected to the hearing of the appeal, and asked that it be dismissed on the ground that the Trans-Missouri Freight Association liad l)een dissolved by a vote of its members