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 #:
0007
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.

In the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania October Term, 1914. United States of America v. Motion Picture Patents Company and others. REPLY BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES. I. The license restrictions and conditions must be considered as a whole, not independently of each other. In their consideration of the questions of patent law involved in this case defendants' counsel make a fundamental error in their recital of the facts. They take each restriction and condition contained in the several license agreements and examine it as if it were an isolated, single restriction attached to the use of a patented article by the owner of a single patent. They entirely overlook the fact that such is not the case in respect to one of the restrictions contained in the license agreements. Each restriction is but a part of the