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 #:
00033
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.

27 case. In the case at bar the defendants adopted the method of leasing film. In this way they say they reserve title to the film and therefore may determine to the last detail the manner in which the film shall be distributed in commerce. Assuming, arguendo, that the film is a patented article, we maintain that the adoption of the lease system by the defendants was a mere form given by them to the combination for the purpose of bringing about the unlawful result. In their answer they state (Ans. Patents Co., fols. 314-319) the sole reason for expressly framing the license agreements in the form of a lease was to facilitate the peremptory return of the articles by means of a writ of replevin in the event of a violation of the terms of the agreements. (See main brief, pp. 215-219. See also main brief, p. 168, where a Government witness gave uncontradicted testimony that an attorney for the Patents Company stated in his presence that these replevin suits were being brought mostly to scare the people engaged in the business around through the country.) In Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. Park & Sons, 220 U. S., 373, a manufacturer adopted a scheme of agency contracts for the purpose of controlling the distribution in commerce of his products. The articles which he manufactured were not patented articles. He attempted, however, to retain title to those articles and, by means of agency contracts, to fix prices of wholesalers to retailers and prices of retailers to the public. The Su