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 #:
00064
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.

This is the same phraseology as was used in 12192. The latter sentence of the quotation! just given, however, was changed in 12038 so as to read as follows : The film is treated for developing and fixing the pictures when positive prints therefrom (Fig. VI) can be used in an exhibiting apparatus. No. 12038 was issued July 15, 1902. It was subsequently abandoned by the Edison Company and 12192 issued on January 12, 1904. In 12192 the claimant returned to the language of 589168 by striking out from 12038 the clause " when positive prints therefrom (Fig. VI)." The above examination of the phraseology employed in the several letters patent demonstrates beyond question that 12192 describes the negative film alone and can not by any possibility be construed as constituting a claim on the positive print which is made from the negative. XII. Cases dealing with relation of patent laws and the Sherman Act not discussed in onr main brief although there cited, pages 21-22. (1) Judge Hollister's opinion in the Cash Register case — United States v. Patterson, 205 Fed., 292. This opinion was rendered on a decision on the admissibility of certain evidence. The ques