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

39 are now affirming its validity it has been infringed by everyone since that time. Why was it not litigated to a final hearing, as was done with the Edison camera patent? Obviously, because the owners thought so little of its validity that they did not care to incur the expense of a suit. (II, 922, fol. 4.) Mr. Dyer admitted making the above statements. (Ill, 1669, et seq. ; see our main brief, pp. 114119.) J. A. Berst, of Pathe Freres, published articles in the trade papers in 1908 informing the trade that the Latham patent was of no value. But the defendants called Berst to testify that what he had said in 1908 he did not believe at the time to be true. As a witness for the defendants Berst testified that he always believed the Latham patent to be of value. But Berst 's interests are different to-day from what they were in 1908. On crossexamination he admitted that he published a statement which he knew to be untrue in fact in order to protect his business, and that he was willing to say something untrue and false and which he knew to be untrue and false in order that he might protect his business. (IY, 1957, fol. 1.) Such is the history of this patent, and yet these defendants, unless this court adjudges the combination to be unlawful, propose to continue their illegal licensing arrangement under the Latham patent until the expiration of this patent in 1919. The Latham patent has a longer period to run than