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 #:
00065
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. 1291 of the present commercial type, adapted to use very wide film, two and three-quarter-inch film, which it used in giving exhibitions in theatres at that time. Those machines were never sold. Q. Had the Biograph or Armat companies, prior to 1908, licensed any manufacturers under their patents to make projecting machines? A. The Armat Company, prior to 1908, licensed the Edison Company for a limited time to make projecting machines under the patents of the Armat Company, which machines were not to be sold, but were to be leased only. But that license was of very brief duration. It expired or was cancelled after a short time. The Edison Company then continued to make and sell projecting machines in defiance of the patents. Q. Do you know whether the Edison and Armat companies had a lawsuit thereafter? A. Oh, yes; the Armat Company brought suit against the Edison Company and secured a preliminary injunction against the Edison Company, which, for a time, prevented their manufacturing and selling machines embodying the Armat invention. But that preliminary injunction was subsequently dissolved, when the Edison Company obtained some sort of an alleged license under that patent through some one who claimed to have some rights under the patent. And then the lawsuit was progressed, I understand, as diligently as the funds of the Armat Company would permit. The Armat Company also licensed the Biograph Company, under its patents to manufacture and use, but not to sell, projecting machines for its own use. Q. What companies among the licensees are represented in the directorate of the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. The Edison Company and the Biograph Company only. Q. When exchange licenses were granted after the formation of the Motion Picture Patents Company, what investigation did you make regarding them, and what was your policy with respect to granting these licenses? A. Well, some or all of the licensees of the Motion Picture Patents Company, prior to the organization of that company, had been in the habit of dealing with some or all of the rental exchanges then existing in the country, and the standing and desirability of those various rental exchanges was discussed with such manufacturers as had knowledge there