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 #:
00087
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. 1313 Chicago, Siegmund Lubin, of Philadelphia, Gaston Melies, 1 of New York (for himself and as attorney for George Melies, of Paris, France), Selig Polyscope Company of Chicago, and the Vitagraph Company of America, of New York, under agreements in writing between said Edison Manufacturing Company and said several licensees, dated January 31, 1908; which said agreements, dated May 20, 1908, and January 31, 1908 (except that to which Gaston Melies was a party), were suspended by the parties thereto in and by the license agreements next referred to to which said licensees (or their successors) were parties, in the same manner as hereinafter provided for in paragraph 31; and 2b. Certain licenses granted, under said reissued letters patent Nos. 12,037 and 12,192, and said letters patent No. 629,063, and 707,934, by the Licensor, to Thomas A. Edison, Inc., aforesaid, Biograph Company, of New Jersey, Essanay Film Manufacturing Company, of Illinois, Kalem Company aforesaid, Lubin Manufacturing Company, of Pennsylvania (successor to Siegmund Lubin, aforesaid), Pathe Freres aforesaid, Selig Polyscope Company afore ., said, and Vitagraph Company of America aforesaid, under agreements in writing between the Licensor and said several licensees dated June 6, 1912, at which time a certain license was also granted by the Licensor, under said reissued letters patent No. 12,192, to George Kleine, of Chicago, which, however, did not include the right to manufacture negative motion pictures nor the right to manufacture or use such cameras as aforesaid, and also a license to Gaston Melies (for himself and as attorney for George Melies, of Paris, France), dated June 6, 1912, which was modified by an agreement dated February 26, 1913, and ± to Geo. Kleine Film Company of Illinois, dated February 1, 1913; and 3. Whereas, the operation of the said license agreements referred to in Paragraph 2a of this agreement (except that to which George Melies was a party) was suspended by the parties thereto; and 4. Whereas, the Licensor and the Licensee are desirous of terminating the license agreement, between the Licensor