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.

54 something else. It is obvious that if defendants' argument is sound it is not necessary to obtain a patent in order to dominate the commerce in the article for which the patent would otherwise be sought. It would only be necessary to obtain a patent on something in connection with which the article is used. This reasoning shows the absurdity of attempting to justify the conditions and restrictions attached to the use of the patents in the case at bar. By means of these conditions incorporated in licenses defendants acquire a monopoly which the courts have refused in the form of a patent monopoly. Judge Wallace said the Edison Co. could! not monopolize the product by a patent ; he refused the patent. Therefore they would monopolize it by tying up its use to another patent. XI. The film patent does not cover the positive print. Phraseology employed in letters patent establishes this. On the question whether or not the film reissue patent 12192 applies to positive prints, we respectfully direct the court's attention to the language of Judge Wallace and also to the language of the Letters Patent 12192, and ask that it be contrasted with the language used in the camera reissue patent 12037. It is evident from the opinion of the Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit, written bv Judge Wallace, that the court was considering