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:

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.

1258 H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. Q. Do you recall what this label provided with reference to trademarks? A. It provided that the trademark of the producer should not be removed. Q. Did most of the producers use trademarks, or don't you know that? A. I believe they did. Q. Do you recall what this label provided with reference to the possession of the motion picture upon violation of any of the foregoing conditions? A. The notice provided that in case of violation of any of the foregoing conditions, the right of possession of the moving picture should revert to the original owner. Q. Did the licensor stipulate, in fact, with the licensee, any fixed sub-rental price at any time? A. Never. That provision was always a dead letter; never exercised. Q. It was in the license agreement, but was never used? A. No. It was never used. It was in there, but it was never used. Q. Was there a provision in the license agreement with respect to duping? A. Yes. Q. And what was the purport of that? A. Well, it was provided that dupes should not be made by the licensee, or issued. Q. Did you regard this as a necessary and desirable condition? A. Yes. This we regarded as a very necessary provision, because there had been a good deal of this duping practiced prior to the organization of the Patents Company, and it was most demoralizing. No producer could feel safe in expending any considerable sum of money in getting up motion picture dramas, if any of his competitors might dupe his films as soon as they were issued, and supply copies themselves. Q. How did the scale of minimum prices fixed by the license agreement between the Patents Company and the producers of motion pictures, compare with the prices that prevailed during the life of the Edison agreement? A. The scale of prices adopted by the license agreement was not materially different from the prices then prevailing for motion pictures in this country. The minimum prices established in the license agreement were slightly lower than the prices at which the Biograph Company, George Kleine, and some others, had been supplying motion pictures, and they were slightly higher than the prices at which the