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 #:
00035
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.

H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 12(>1 for the manufacturer to print up all of the copies from the negative that he was going to dispose of, at one time, than it was to print copies at separate times, and there was a certain advantage to the manufacturer in being able to rely upon his market, and to know in advance approximately how many copies of a certain subject he would lease. That facilitated the operation of his factory where the prints were made. Q. What is a standing order? A. A standing order is an order for one or more copies of each subject or drama produced and issued by a producer. Q. Why was a provision incorporated in the license agreement against re-importation? A. Well, that was necessary because film was permitted to be sold abroad, and if that film should be re-imported into this country there would be no way of preventing its being used in violation of the terms and conditions under which the films were leased for use in this country. Q. Why was a provision inserted in the license agreement against disposing of motion pictures as premiums or prizes? A. Well, such a use of motion pictures might be unfairly made by a licensee, to induce the lease of his film for some reason other than on account of the merit of the production itself, and it was desired to foster as great competition on the basis of merit alone as was possible. Q. What explanation do you wish to make regarding the provision in the license agreement that the licensee must lease subject to the condition that the title must remain in him, and the pictures shall not be shown in any but licensed projecting machines? A. Well, that was really a necessary condition, particularly the condition that the motion pictures should be only exhibited in licensed projecting machines. That was a condition the necessity for which arose out of the fact that these several patents were in the hands of a single owner. Once you place these supplementary patents in the hands of a single owner, it becomes impossible for that owner to grant a license under one of these patents, without restricting that license with reference to its use under the other patents, unless the owner is prepared to abandon one of the patents, and to abandon any revenue that he might otherwise derive from that patent. Because if in this present case the licensor should grant a license under this patent on film the one who took that license on the film, un