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 1
Leaf #:
00044
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.

22 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. Company and the Armat Company. " A. It was not considered desirable that the stock should get scattered. Q. Is the stock of the Patents Company held by a trust company to-day under this provision, Paragraph 14 of the agreement, being Exhibit 2, to the petition in this case? A. I believe it is. Q. Is the stock of the Patents Company which is owned by the Biograph Company held by the same trust company to-day under a similar provision incorporated in the Biograph agreement? A. I think so; I think all of the stock is held by the same trust company. Q. And what is that trust company? A. I believe it is the Empire Trust Company. Q. Now, this agreement in Paragraph 15, provides: "It is further mutually covenanted and agreed that, upon the termination of this agreement for any of the foregoing causes, or any other cause, all of the right, title and interest in and to the said reissued United States Letters Patents Nos. 12037 and 12192 shall be reassigned by the Patents Company to the Edison Company for and in consideration of the sum of one dollar ($1.00)." Those two reissued patents are 12037 and 12192 and were the patents transferred by the Edison Company? A. Yes. Q. Now, what was the purpose of incorporating in this agreement a provision of this character, that is, permitting the retransfer to the assignor of the patent, provided the Patents Company discontinued business or the licenses were terminated? A. That was to protect the interest of the licensor in the event of the dissolution of the Patents Company. Q. Has that provision of the agreement been changed since 1908? A. No. Q. Now, is there a similar provision respecting the patents that were assigned by the Biograph Company to the Patents Company? A. Yes. Q. So that if this agreement should be terminated the patents under the agreement would be reassigned to the Biograph Company in consideration of one dollar? A. Yes. Counsel for defendants admit that Exhibit #, of the petition is a true copy of the license agree