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)

Page scan 00062 from 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 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 #:
00062
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
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 12, 2024
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.

1288 H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. was never used. It was never acted on while it was in existence. Q. Are you sufficiently familiar with the suits brought by the Biograph Company under the Latham patent to tell us how many there were, or anything about them? A. According to my best recollection, there were about nine suits brought by the Biograph Company, while it owned the Latham patent. These were principally directed against the then licensees of the Edison Company. There was a suit against the Edison Company, against, I believe, the Essanay Company, the Kalem Company, and the Vitagraph Company. There was a suit against Fox, I believe, or the Greater New York Film Rental Company — I think It was against Fox personally, and I believe there were some suits against some other theatre owners. One down in Alabama, I think. There was a suit against Selig of the Edison licensees. The conspicuous infringers of the patents. Q. Why was it provided in the license to producers of motion pictures that the licensees could not lease, loan, rent out, sell, or offer for sale, or otherwise dispose of, in the territory aforesaid, motion pictures to anyone purchasing or otherwise obtaining, leasing, using, loaning or renting out, selling and offering for sale or otherwise disposing of or dealing in motion pictures embodying the inventions of said Reissue Letters Patent No. 12,192, not the output of the licensee or the additional licensees hereinafter provided for? A. Any such motion pictures not the output of the licensee or the other licensees would have been motion pictures made and issued in infringement of the patents owned by the Patents Company. Therefore, if any licensee should supply motion pictures to such a party so making or issuing infringing motion pictures, they would be aiding and abetting them in infringement of the patents of the Patents Company. Furthermore, such a person making and issuing infringing motion pictures could only supply them to exhibitors using unlicensed projecting machines, who were infringing the patents of the Patents Company on projecting machines, and if licensees knowingly supplied motion pictures to such individuals who were contributory infringers of the projecting machine patents, the licensees themselves would become contributory infringers of those projecting machine patents. Therefore, such a provision as that was a consistent pro