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 #:
00039
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.

33 Mr. Marvin was the only witness called by the defendants to testify as to the function of the patents, but it is not in any respect accurate to state that his testimony stands uncontradicted and unimpeached. Mr. Marvin's testimony as to the value of the patents and their functions is contradicted by his own words and by his own actions prior to the formation of the combination. His testimony is refuted by the actions of the defendants as proven in the record. For instance, Mr. Marvin's testimony in this case as to the value of the film patent is directly contradicted by his own statements respecting the film patent, made in 1908, and his testimony is also contradicted by his actions in selling and distributing film for many years prior to the formation of the combination. To-day he says that the patent is good and that before 1909 he was infringing the film patent, but before the combination was formed he asserted he was not infringing the film patent and that the patent was valueless. In each case he takes that position which at the moment is most favorable to his own interests. In stating this fact we are not intending to reflect upon Mr. Marvin's veracity; we are merely drawing attention to the fact that the character of his testimony is affected by his interest. The interest he has at stake makes him a biased and unreliable witness. Similarly, Mr. Marvin's testimony in regard to the Latham and Smith patents is contradicted by