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

Record Details:

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.

18 the machine by him. Marvin testified that the Edison Co., Pathe Freres, Selig Polyscope Co., Essanay Co., and Lubin Co. had sold machines outright prior to December, 1908, without attaching any conditions to their use. (I, 28, fol. 4.) By means of their combination, the defendants imposed in the form of a royalty the payment of $2 a week by each exhibitor who had bought a machine prior to February 1, 1909. Twenty-four per cent of the exhibitors' royalties was divided among the nine manufacturers, five of whom were the companies named above, who had theretofore sold the machines without restrictions. This 24 per cent of the royalties was divided among the manufacturers who had not assigned any patents to the Patents Company. In regard to the collection of these royalties see Vol. I, p. 26, fol. 4, to p. 29, inclusive, and Vol. I, p. 127, fol. 4, to p. 129, inclusive. It is manifest that in enforcing the collection of this royalty the defendants were not attaching any legal and reasonable condition to the use of patented articles. The payment was compelled by the united action of all the defendants. The profits went to all the manufacturers regardless of whether or not the manafacturer had assigned any patent to the Patents Company. If the $2 a week royalty was not paid by the exhibitor he was able to obtain no film from any of the manufacturers. They cut him off from all supplies of film. The euphemistic term, how