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 #:
00065
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.

59 tions had been argued at great length before District Judge Hollister by distinguished counsel. (See p. 293.) The question was whether or not evidence might be introduced by the defendants of the character and scope of the patents owned by the National Cash Register Company and whether or not the various competitors named in the indictment were infringers of those patents. The evidence was excluded. (Page 294:) The claim is made by counsel for the defendants that there can be no such thing as a free flow of commerce or trade in articles made in infringement of a patent, and this is on the ground that a patentee has a monopoly by virtue of the laws of the United States enacted in pursuance of constitutional authority. They say that a patentee, having a lawful monopoly by the operation of the patent laws, can not be charged with monopolizing under the Sherman Antitrust Act. In the course of a well-considered opinion, Judge Hollister said: (295:) Counsel have cited no case — if there had been one, they would have found it — and the assertion, usually of doubtful wisdom, may in this connection be safely made that no decision will be found sanctioning acts of violence by a patentee in the protection of his patent right, acts of violence against the claimed infringing article or the business of in