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 #:
00069
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. 1295 Thereupon H. N. Marvin resumed the stand. Direct examination continued by Mr. KlNGSLBY: Q. Going back to the time of the formation of the Biograph Company, and then extending your answer to a period covering the entire intervening period, has there been, at any time, any understanding or agreement on the part of your company with anyone to limit the output either of subjects, or copies of subjects, of motion pictures? A. No. Q. Has your company at all times, been free to enlarge its business with respect to the number of motion pictures it might produce? A. Yes. Q. Was the standing order a trade condition existing at the time of the Patents Company's organization, and recognized as such in framing the license? A. Yes, sir. Q. In your direct testimony there was some evidence given with respect to the Latham patent, but it does not appear there from whom it was bought. From whom was the Latham patent purchased? A. The Latham patent was purchased from Anthony & Scoville. Q. Where was that company located? A. That company, I believe, was located at Binghamton, New York. Q. Did you know anything about the company at that time, with respect to its financial standing and condition? A. It was generally understood at that time that the company was in financial straits, and had been for some time previous. They were exercising all their ingenuity to raise funds to carry on their business, and to prosecute the litigation under patents that they held, which purported to cover the manufacture of raw stock on which it is customary to print motion pictures. Q. Do you recall that a notice was sent by the Motion Picture Patents Company, on or about November 14th, 1911, to the Greater New York Film Rental Company, cancelling its license? A. Yes. Q. What action had been taken, if any, by the producers of motion pictures prior to this cancellation? A. Prior to the notice of cancellation the matter of the conduct of the Greater New York Film Rental Company, in its handling and care of licensed motion pictures, had been considered by the licensed producers of motion pictures. There had been a discussion of the doings of the Greater New York 1