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 #:
00016
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.

10 Mr. Aiken, Vol. IV, 2333, fol. 1, testified that the manufacturers did not have anything to do with the preparation of the rule. In view of these facts how can it be urged that this requirement was a legal and reasonable condition imposed by the patentee upon the use of a patented article. It was not imposed by him but by others, and yet failure to meet this requirement was the sole excuse offered by defendants for the cancellation of a number of licenses. See principal brief of defendants, p. 150 (Philadelphia Film Exchange), p. 152 (American Film Exchange), pp. 152-153 (Duquesne Amusement Supply Company), etc. The list printed as Appendix A to defendants' principal brief (pp. 418 et seq.) enumerates the following exchanges whose licenses were cancelled "because the exchange was not leasing the required minimum quantity of licensed motion pictures": Page. American Film Service 418 Eugene Cline & Co., Chicago 419 Eugene Cline & Co., Salt Lake City 419 Harry Davis, Pittsburgh 420 Harry Davis, Buffalo 420 Harry Davis. Philadelphia 421 Duquesne Amusement Supply Co.. Norfolk. Va 421 Kay Tee Film Exchange, Los Angeles. Cal 423 Philadelphia Film Exchange, Philadelphia 428 United States Film Exchange. Chicago 433 This was the sort of condition that was condemned by the Supreme Court in Montague v. Lowrie, 193 U. S., at page -±7. In that case