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.
3312 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 55.
which, on the main contention, sustained the finding of the Court below.
The American Mntoscope and Biograph Company at the time when the second action was brought against it, was using two forms of camera, one known as the Biograph camera, which it brought out in 189G and for which it had obtained the controlling patents of unquestionable validity; and a foreign camera known as the Warwick camera, of which it had purchased a small number for special uses. The Court of Appeals held that the Biograph camera was not covered hy the claims of the Edison patent and was not an infrngement of that patent. The use of the Warwick camera was enjoined, but this caused no interruption whatever in the defendant's business operations, and for over a year the American Mntoscope and Biograph Company has manufactured many hundreds of thousands of feet of moving picture film with its Biograph camera.
The Court of Appeals in the second action found claim 4 of the Edison reissued patent for the camera, to be void, and in its opinion, which is reported in Volume 151 of the Federal Reporter, page 767, the Court says :
"Upon the appeal in the first suit we discussed the prior art and the general character of the device sought to be patented at very great length. It is unnecessary to repeat that discussion. All that was said in the prior opinion, however, may be considered as embodied herein, since the conclusion hereinafter expressed is founded upon the findings then made, and which nothing in the present record or argument induces us to qualify in any manner. We held that Edison was not a pioneer in the large sense of the term, or in the limited sense in which he would have been if he had invented the film. He was not the inventor of the film. Tie was not the first inventor of apparatus capable of producing suitable negatives, taken from practically a single point of view, in single line sequence upon a film like his."
From the above it will be seen that none of the three suits brought by Edison against this company has been decided in Edison's favor, but on the contrary, that all three