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 #:
00063
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. 1289 vision with the other limitations of the license, and it was intended by inserting it, to have that plainly and explicitly understood by the licensees who accepted licenses from the Motion Picture Patents Company. Q. Why was the provision incorporated in the rental exchange agreement to the effect that the licensee shall not sell, rent, or otherwise dispose of, either directly or indirectly, any licensed motion pictures, however the same shall have been obtained, to any persons, firms or corporations or agents thereof, who may be engaged, either directly or indirectly in selling or renting motion picture films? A. Any such persons who engaged in selling or renting motion picture films unless they were licensed by the Patents Company, would be infringers of the Patents Company's patents, and if the rental exchange should supply motion pictures knowingly to such people, they would be contributory infringers. They could not supply such motion pictures to the licensed rental exchanges, since licensed rental exchanges could not lease such motion pictures from other rental exchanges, without violating their own licenses, and they would, therefore, be accessories to such violation in leasing motion pictures to the other licensed rental exchanges. Q. Did you, either as an individual or as a representative of any corporation with which you were connected, determine or unite with others who had determined to destroy competition between these defendants, in the motion picture art? A. I did not. Q. Was the Motion Picture Patents Company organized for the purpose of destroying competition or restricting competition in the motion picture art between these defendants? A. It was not. It was designed to promote competition. Q. By whom was the Motion Picture Patents Company organized? A. The Motion Picture Patents Company was organized by representatives of the Biograph Company and of the Edison Company. Q. Was it the purpose of the Motion Picture Patents Company or its organizers, to acquire all of the patents relating to the motion picture art? A. Xo. Q. Was any attempt made to obtain a list or enumeration of all of the patents relating to the motion picture art? A. No. <}. Was there any intention, plan, purpose or agree