United States of America v. Motion Picture Patents Company and others (1914)

Record Details:

Title:
United States of America v. Motion Picture Patents Company and others
Date:
1914
Publisher:
Washington, D.C. : United States. Government Printing Office
Volume:
United States of America v. Motion Picture Patents Company and others
Leaf #:
0003
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Books
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
December 21, 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.

INDEX. Page. Point I. — The license restrictions and conditions must be considered as a whole, not independently of each other 1 Point II. — The evidence in the case of the Keystone Watch Case Co. contrasted with the evidence found in this record 11 Point III. — Xot a single competitor testified that defendants' competition has been fair; scores testified to oppressive acts 14 Point IV. — Manufacturers who had never owned any of the patents share in the socalled u royalties" IT Point V. — The extent of the monopoly acquired by the General Film Co 19 Point VI. — The relation of the patent laws to the Sherman Act 24 Point VII. — The fact that defendants leased films instead of selling them constitutes no defense — the form is immaterial 26 Point VIII. — Defendant Marvin was the only witness called by defendants to describe the patents: this branch of their case rests entirely on the testimony of this interested witness defendant 32 Point IX. — Only six of the sixteen patents enumerated in the agreements are to be considered — defendants have abandoned the other ten 35 79466—15 1 (I)