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

Record Details:

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.

48 ment, assigned the/ patent to the Biograpk Company. (Marvin, «H&.) No witness testified as to the value of this patent except Marvin. Although Mr. Marvin contends that this is a valuable patent, the answer of the defendants makes this statement (Ans. Patents Co., p. 26, fol. 60) : Prior to 1908, the great value of the Pross invention was not appreciated except by the Biograph Company. Mr. Church's brief states (p. 82) that the patent has been acquiesced in by thousands of licensees, including manufacturers, exchanges, and exhibitors. There is no testimony in the record supporting this statement except in so far as manufacturers, exchanges, and exhibitors taking licenses from the Patents Company, which licenses enumerate sixteen patents, may be considered, by the act of taking tke licenses, to acquiesce in the validity of the patent. (5) FILM PATENT. As pointed out in our main brief (p. 56 and p. 84), the film patent is the only patent under which a license was granted by the exchange license agreement. That is to say, the right asserted by defendants to dominate and regulate the business of exchange men rests entirely upon the exchange license agreement, and that agreement purports to grant rights only under the film patent and no other patent. (See Pet., p. 80, Ex. 4, clause 1.)