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 #:
00037
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. 1263 was no other film. Therefore, in order to protect those several patents and insure a revenue under each of them, and not to abandon either of them to the public, it was necessary that any license granted under either should have interlocking restrictions and conditions which applied to the other patent covering the other part of the essential apparatus for the production of these motion picture dramas. Mr. Grosvenor: What patents are you referring to when you use the words "either patent"? The Witness: I am referring to the film patent on the one side, and I am referring to, for example, the Latham patent on the other side. By Mr. Kingslby: Q. Had it been found desirable and necessary to have a stipulation that the licensee should insist upon the return of an equivalent amount of film the seventh month after the film was shipped? A. It had been found, as a matter of fact, that after film had been in general use for about six months it usually became unfit for further use, and that if it was used after it was thus worn by exhibitions, that the dramatic representations were very much inferior, the film had become scratched, had become torn, usually pieces of it would be torn out, thus making serious breaks in the continuity of the drama, the emulsion would be scraped off in spots, causing bright flashes on the screen, which wrere painful to the eye, and therefore it was found necessary, in order to maintain a reasonable quality to the public presentations of these dramas, that such wrorn film should be returned to the makers of the film and destroyed, and not again used for public exhibitions. Q. Why was the licensed producer of motion pictures prevented from giving exhibitions of standard motion pictures for profit? A. It was feared that if the producers of motion pictures should get to exhibiting them publicly, that that would deter others from making considerable investments in theatres, and going extensively into the business, because of the apprehension they might feel that if the producers themselves should start in that line of business, that they would be put to serious disadvantage,