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 #:
00013
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.

tions contained in them were arrived at by agreement of all the manufacturers, as alleged in the petition, is strong evidence that the restrictions were not normal and legal conditions affixed to the use of patented articles. In the Dick case Mr. Justice Lurton said (224 IT. S., at p. 26): " Where, then, is the line between a lawful and an unlawful qualification upon the use? " If a patentee in the ordinary course of business affixes a condition to the use of his patented machine, the fact that he affixes it on his own motion and by independent action is evidence of the fact that he does it in the ordinary course of business. On the other hand, when all the manufacturers engaged in a certain line of business, some of them owning patents and others of them owning no patents, by arrangements and conferences among themselves decide the terms and conditions that the so-called licenses shall contain, we have the strongest possible evidence that the agreements are not normal and usual licenses given by the owner of a patent, but are, in fact, agreements entered into for the purpose of accomplishing restraint of trade. The conferences and the simultaneous execution of all the license agreements on December 18, 1908, prove not only the combination between the defendants, but they establish also that each restriction was entered into in an abnormal and unreasonable manner and therefore is not a lawful qualification upon the use of the article.