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 #:
00056
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.

50 that unless the Edison Company stipulated not to bring any more such suits he would enjoin them from doing so. After the combination was formed in December, 1908, the defendants set up the film patent as the foundation of the licensing arrangement. The film patent has been sustained by no court. The Circuit Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit held, in 1902, that it was not patentable, and the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari to that decision. (186 IT. S., 480.) The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, opinion by Chief Justice Shepard, has also squarely decided that 12192 is an invalid patent. Mr. Church refers in his brief (p. 47) to an action on 12192 brought by the Patents Company in New Jersey on April 9, 1913, almost a year after the Government commenced this prosecution, and more than nine years after the patent was reissued. We submit that an action brought under such circumstances can have no bearing on this case. Throughout these nine years other manufacturers have openly and continuously manufactured and distributed films in this circuit and throughout the United States, but the defendants took no legal steps until they thought it might help to say to the court in this case that there is an action pending on 12192 in this circuit, upon which they commenced the proceeding referred to. (See main brief, p. 120.)