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 #:
00030
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.

1256 H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. fore, the framers of the license agreed upon the expedient of having these royalties collected by the manufacturer who supplied the raw stock, and transmitted to the Motion Picture Patents Company in bulk, subject, of course, to the scrutiny of chartered accountants. Q. What was the purpose in stipulating that worn motion pictures must be cut or defaced by the licensee before selling them as refuse? A. Well, worn motion pictures returned to producers were so returned because they were considered to be unfit for proper representations of motion picture dramas, and to avoid the possibility of those picture strips being again put into public use by any unscrupulous person who might obtain possession of them in any manner whatever, it was provided that they should be utterly defaced and practically destroyed before they went out of the possession of the original producer. Q. Why were the licensees restricted from selling or leasing to anyone handling motion pictures not the output of one of the licensees? A. Well, anyone handling motion pictures containing the inventions of the Edison Reissue Patent, who was not one of the licensees, would, of necessity, be an infringer, and if the licensees were to supply motion pictures to such an infringer, they would be aiding and abetting an infringer of the very patents under which they were licensees. Q. Was it provided in the license agreement with the producers of motion pictures that the boxes containing licensed motion pictures sent out by the said licensees, should contain a label pursuant to the stipulations of the license? A. It was. Q. Do you recall what this label provided with reference to the selling or leasing? A. Well, this label provided that the motion picture strips contained therein should not be sold, but could only be used or leased. Mr. Grosvenor: I object to that answer as stating the contents of a notice; furthermore, the answer is not an accurate and complete statement of what the notice did contain. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Do you recall what tin's label provided with refer