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 #:
00059
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:
August 01, 2024
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.

53 invention on the one hand, and of the alleged picture-film invention on the other hand. And the emphatic repetition of the decision made by the same court five years Inter that Edison did not invent the film was accompanied by an upholding of the three reissued camera claims as good and valid over the art. (6) The Camera Patent, Reissue No. 12037. This is undoubtedly a valuable and important patent on a part of the camera. We conceded its validity and its value at the argument; but even if the patent be valuable and important, it does not entitle the owner thereof to monopolize or dominate the art by virtue of its ownership. The Circuit Court of Appeals, by Judge Lacombe, sustained the patent in 1907, at the same time referring with approval to their earlier decision in which they had held that the film is not patentable. Accordingly, we have this question: May the owner of a patent on a part of the camera control the commerce in the product by virtue of his patent on the camera, although the court has held that the product itself is not patentable? The answer must be in the negative; otherwise the owner of the camera patent will be obtaining, through that ownership, a power over the product which the patent laws will not grant him in the form of a patent on the product. That is he is refused a patent on the product, but seeks to obtain the same power by means of the ownership of a patent on