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 #:
00050
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.

44 warnings to alleged infringers of the patent, but the circulars introduced by him were all issued in the years 1900 to 1902. (IV, 2125 to 2133.) The Armat Company brought a number of suits during the years 1901 to 1903, which were enumerated by Mr. Armat. (IV, 2134, fol. 4.) They started a suit against the Edison Manufacturing Company November 28, 1903, and obtained an injunction against that company January 8, 1903. (IV, 2135, fol. 4.) Mr. Armat testified that the litigation between his company and the Edison Company was " actively prosecuted," but that it never reached a final determination in the sense of being ended by a final decree of the court. (IV, 2137, fol. 4.) He said it was prosecuted until the Edison Company accepted a license under the patent (IV, 2137, fol. 4), which was in December, 1908. On cross-examination it developed that the injunction obtained against the Edison Company was vacated after a reversal by the Court of Appeals, and after June, 1903, the Edison Company continuously manufactured and sold projecting machines (IV, 2180, fol. 1), all of which machines Armat contended infringed his patent. When cross-examined as to the meaning of the term "actively prosecuted," used by Mr. Armat on direct examination in stating that the Edison suit had been actively prosecuted, these facts developed: Up to December, 1908, when the Patents Company was organized, there had been no final