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 #:
00022
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.

16 posed by the license agreements. This defense was invariably denied by the rental exchangeman and exhibitor. Further, the defendants have maintained under the fourteen-day clause of the rental exchange license agreement the right to cut off supplies at any time, whether or not the exchange had violated any of the terms of the license agreement. In many cases, the Patents Company and defendants acted under the fourteen-day clause, in which case no excuse has been or can be offered to justify their arbitrary and unreasonable action. In view of the rapid expansion of the General Film Co., which acquired a total of 57 exchanges in the last seven months of 1910, although it did not commence business until June, 1910, it seems futile for defendants to deny that the General Film Co. was organized for the purpose of acquiring them, and in view of the minutes (see main brief pp. 157163) it seems futile for defendants to deny any intent on the part of the General Film Co. to monopolize the business. It is incredible that any one could entertain seriously the statement made in defendants' principal brief, at p. 208: The idea in forming the General Film Co. was to form a sort of " model exchange that might serve as an example for all the exchanges then operating." (Smith, III, 1700.) Mr. Smith, to whom counsel refer, and who gave the testimony, is one of the defendants in this suit.