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 #:
00070
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.

64 The court also quoted from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the National Harrow case, where it was said : The fact that the property involved is covered by letters patent is urged as a justification; but we do not see how any importance can be attributed to this fact. (3) Robert H. Ingersoll & Bro. v. McColl, 204 Fed., 147: District Judge Willard, of Minnesota, held that where a license restriction was imposed by the owner of a patent not for purposes of protecting the patent or for securing its benefits, but for the purpose of evading the antitrust act, it was void. The restriction under consideration in the case was a price restriction. The opinion considers numerous cases. After citing the BobbsMerrill, Dr. Miles Medical, Bement, Dick and Bath Tub Trust cases, the court said : From these authorities the rule to be deduced is this: If the license restriction is imposed, not for the purpose of protecting the patent or for securing its benefits, but for the purpose of evading the provisions of the antitrust act, then it is void, because such restriction is not * ' a reasonable condition imposed upon the licensee of a patent by the owner thereof," nor is it " a condition suitable to protect the use of a patent and secure its benefits." (153:) The right of a patentee to do what he may please to do with the patented article is not unrestricted. It is limited in