In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants (1913)

Record Details:

Title:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants
Date:
1913
Publisher:
New York, Appeal Printing Co.
Volume:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants : record volume 3
Leaf #:
00022
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
Format:
Periodicals
Contributor:
The Museum of Modern Art Library, New York
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
These seven volumes contain the testimonies and supporting documents from the U.S. District Court's antitrust lawsuit against the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC). Formed in 1908, the MPPC (sometimes referred to asœ"the Edison Trust" or just "the Trust") sought to control the American film industry through pooling patents and demanding that producers and exhibitors acquire licenses to those patents. Independent producers and exhibitors, who refused to license the patents, argued that the MPPC was an unlawful monopoly. In 1912 and 1913, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania heard testimonies from both MPPC members, such as Siegmund Lubin, and "Independents" who later became Hollywood moguls, such as William Fox. Ultimately, in 1915, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which found the MPPC in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and spelled the end for the already weakening MPPC. -- Eric Hoyt, 2012
Date Added:
September 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.

1248 H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. The Witness: We were very uncertain as to our ability to continue in the production and distribution of motion pictures because of the patent litigation. Q. Was there much litigation in the business at thattime? A. There was a great deal of litigation at that time, and there had been continuous litigation from about 1896. Q. And was the Biograph Company involved in some of this litigation? A. It was involved in this litigation. It was the defendant in suits brought by the Edison Company under patents that were alleged to cover essential elements in the production of motion pictures, notably, the motion picture camera, and the motion picture film. It was also sued by the Armat Company for the use of exhibiting machines under patents that purported to cover essential elements in the exhibiting machine. It had been repeatedly threatened with suits under the Latham patents which purported to cover essential elements in the projecting machines. Q. Were you familiar with conditions in the business at the time of the organization of the Patents Company, and the acceptance of licenses by the various producers of motion pictures? A. I was. Q. What was the effect upon the business of the producers of motion pictures of the organization of the Patents Company, and the acceptance of licenses by the producers of motion pictures, rental exchanges, and exhibitors? A. Well, the producers of motion pictures, after they had obtained licenses from all of the dominant patents in the art, felt that they had no further ground for apprehension on the score of legal prosecutions. They believed that all of the unrest and turmoil incident to the patent litigation was ended, and that they could then devote their entire energies to the production of motion picture dramas, and the distribution of the films containing reproductions of the dramas, and the result was that they immediately began to increase their investments in plants and facilities for the production of these dramas; they increased their employment of artist-talent; they commenced to increase the number of dramas that they issued weekly or monthly, and in every way began to extend that occupation. Did your question refer solely to producers? Q. It also referred to rental exchanges and exhibitors?