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 #:
00075
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.

69 in it the public have no right to enter save as permitted by their owners," and that, therefore, these patents constitute ample protection and afford ample immunity from prosecution under the Sherman law. So also Judge Moon in his brief, page 68, says : Let us keep constantly in mind that the field that he wTas exploiting was his own field, exclusively. No part of it belonged to the public. In no part of it did competition exist or was competition possible because the owner of this patent created the field. The public had no right in that field whatever and the rental exchange owners and the exhibitors had just such rights as were given them by their license contracts; no more. We take issue on these statements of the facts and also on the stated proposition of law. The patents involved here do not properly cover and lawfully monopolize the industry. The motion-picture industry rests upon all the wonderful discoveries and advances made in the photographic art in the last three score of years. Many inventions made in that period have become the property of the public by reason of the expiration of the patents. If the owners of a few patents in any line of industry may at any time lawfully combine and incorporate restrictions and conditions such as were incorporated in the license agreements in this case, the Sherman Act means