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 #:
00028
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.

1254 H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. sisted upon the right to name the source of supply of that stock Q. This was finally done, was it not? A. This was done. Q. What source of supply was selected? A. The Eastman Kodak Company of Rochester was the source of supply selected for the stock. Q. Is that condition still in effect? By that I mean the condition of stipulating that all pictures made by the licensees must be on film selected and designated by the Patents Company? A. No. That condition is no longer in existence. Q. Do you recall when it was abrogated? A. I believe that condition was abrogated on or about the 20th of June, 1912. Q. Why did the Patents Company agree with the licensed producers of motion pictures to obligate the manufacturer of licensed film not to furnish or sell such film in the territory covered, to any but the licensees, except to the extent of two and a half per cent.? A. Well, any film supplied to anyone other than the licensees, would obviously be supplied for the purpose of being put into infringing use, and since the owners of the patents had agreed with the licensees that the number of licenses issued by the owners of the patents should be limited, that was merely a means, a precautionary means for carrying out that provision. Furthermore, the owners of the patents were obliged by these license agreements to bring suits against infringers under certain of these patents, at the request of the licensees. It was realized, however, that a certain amount, say, two and a half per cent. — that was the percentage finally fixed upon, I believe — of this film, might be advantageously used by scientists and experimenters whose work might tend to develop and advance the art, and to stimulate a certain interest on the part of some of the public in the motion picture art. It was therefore deemed advisable to permit a certain quantity of raw stock to be supplied for that purpose. Q. And along this same line, I will ask you why were the manufacturers of licensed film restricted to supplying independent producers of moving pictures with film one inch in width? A. Well, it was considered that film not wider than one inch could not be used commercially for exhibition of motion picture dramas; that is, in public theatres and halls; that the use of such film would be confined to amateurs and