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 #:
00061
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.

whether or not the patent 589168 applied to negatives. Judge Wallace said (I, 155, fol. 4) : The patent in suit pertains merely to that branch of the art which consists of the production of suitable negatives. And later on in the opinion he said (I, 162, fol 2) : He was not the first inventor of apparatus capable of producing suitable negatives. A comparison of the language used in the film patent reissue 12192 with the language used in the camera patent reissue 12037 conclusively establishes that the film reissue is a claim only on the negative, and that it does not apply to the positive print. If 12192 in fact applies to positive prints, as asserted by counsel for the defendants, why was the clause referring to positive prints expressly omitted from the Letters Patent 12192 but inserted in 12037. (It is to be remembered that these two patents are both reissues of No. 589168.) The fact is the words must have been omitted from 12192 for the express purpose of limiting the claim to the negative. Letters Patent 12192, after describing the manner in which the film is run through the camera and how photographs are taken therein, states (line 119 of letters patent, defendants' Exhibit 187, Vol. VI, p. 3326) : When the movement of the object being photographed has ceased or the desired number of photographs has been obtained, the apparatus is stopped. The film is suit