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 #:
00040
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.

34 his actions prior to the formation of the combination, for at that time he paid no attention to those patents, having used the loop on his machines for years without regard for the Latham patent. Today he says that all the patents are complementary and indispensable and that, combined, they entitle one to monopolize the art, but prior to the formation of the combination his contentions in respect to each patent were directly the contrary. Why did the defendants fail to put on the stand any witness with expert knowledge to testify as to the value of the patents and as to their real use in the art ? Manifestly, the testimony given by Mr. Marvin is not entitled to any weight, contradicted as it is by all the acts of the defendants and by their admissions. Prom its formation Mr. Marvin has been one of the important officers of the Patents Company. He has at all times been an officer, director, and stockholder of the Biograph Company. He has been prominently identified with the General Film Company. He it was who generally took the initiative in causing the cancellation of the license of exchanges and exhibitors. There is no man in the motion-picture business who has a greater interest than Mr. Marvin in having this combination upheld, and yet he was the only one whom the defendants were able to find to support their position on the subject of patents. His testimony as to the Latham patent is contradicted also by the statements of Mr. Dyer made