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 #:
00046
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.

40 any of the other patents assigned to the Patents Company. The manufacturers' license agreement provided that the licensee might renew the agreement by giving notice to the licensor before April 20th of each year until August, 1919, the date of the expiration of the Latham patent. (See section 21 of the manufacturers' agreement, Ex. 3 to petition, p. 76.) (2) THE SMITH PATENT FOR THE FRAMING DEVICE. This is No. 673329, granted to Albert E. Smith April 30, 1901, for improvements in the kinetoscope or projecting machine. The Vitagraph Company assigned six patents to the Patents Company, all relating to projecting machines. Although these six patents are enumerated in the various licenses there is no word of testimony relating to five of them, the patent named above relating to the framing device being the only patent considered of sufficient value by defendants to be referred to in evidence and arguments. This patent is for an improvement in the projecting machine, and for nothing else. The framing device is something which makes the projecting machine a better machine than it would be without the device. It, however, is nothing more than an improvement. The fact that the improvement is patented does not entitle the patentee or owner of the patent on the framing device to im