Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and brief in support thereof (1916)

Record Details:

Title:
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and brief in support thereof
Date:
1916
Publisher:
New York : Press of Fremont Payne
Volume:
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and brief in support thereof
Leaf #:
00028
Language:
English
Collection:
Books and Government & Law
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
December 14, 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.

22 QA Exhihit B. of New York, and the prohibitions of the Clayton Act apply. Marienelli vs. United Booking Offices, 227 Fed., 170; Nash vs. United States, 229 U. S., 373. It is urged that the defendant, Prague Amusement Company, cannot rely upon the license and repudiate its terms. It does not rely upon the license, but obtained a lease of the machine from 65 the owner, the 72nd Street Amusement Company, which acquired it after having paid the purchase price, and thus freed the machine from the unlawful restrictions. The remarks of this Court upon the motion for a stay pending the decision of the appeal from Judge Dickinson's decree in the criminal prosecution for violation of the Sheriman Act, 225 Fed., 800, would be applicable to the case if the restrictions we have held illegal had been held valid. Then it would have been true that the defendant who was using the patented article under a license could not question the validity of the pnt 66 ent, or claim it lacked invention. These remarks are not applicable when the restrictions are held invalid and the article having been thus freed from all restrictions may be used at the will of the licensee. In view of the foregoing considerations it is unnecessary to discuss the other defenses raised by the defendants, and the decree dismissing the bill is affirmed.