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 #:
00038
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.

1204 II. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. and since it was desirable to extend the investments in theatres devoted to motion picture dramas as much as possible, it was considered wise to restrict the producers so that they should not themselves give public exhibitions for hire. Q. At the risk of some possible repetition, I want to ask you this question : What purpose was in view when it was stipulated in the license agreement between the Motion Picture Patents Company and the licensed producers of motion pictures, that a producing licensee should not knowingly allow motion pictures of standard width made by it, to be shown in unlicensed projecting machines? A. Well, the user of an unlicensed projecting machine would be an infringer of the patents of the licensor, and anyone who supplied motion pictures knowingly for use in such a machine, would be a contributory infringer, and it was thought proper to obligate the licensees not to be contributory infringers with others who might be infringing the patents of the licensor. Q. Was there an agreement on the part of the Patents Company to institute suits against infringers upon request of a majority of the licensed producers of motion pictures? A. There was. Q. Was there any special fund for that purpose? A. No. There was no fund for that purpose. It was not anticipated that there would be any material litigation of that character. Q. Was it ever intended to raise a gigantic fund for litigation, as stated by the witness Lodge? A. Why, no. There was never any thought of any such thing. It was expected that the organization of the Motion Picture Patents Company would practically put an end to the litigations under the patents. It was never anticipated that any considerable infringement of these patents would thereafter be attempted. Q. Was such a fund ever raised or maintained? A. It never was. Q. Were the licensed producers of motion pictures treated equally and alike with respect to the terms of the several agreements? A. Yes. The agreements were substantially identical. There were some slight modifications that were incident to the conditions, but they were practically immaterial.