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 #:
00046
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.

24 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. licensor." What was the company referred to there? A. Any company that the Patents Company might select. Q. Whom did they select? A. They did select the Eastman Kodak Company. Q. And it was known at the time that it was the Eastman Kodak Company? A. It was expected that they would be the first one selected because they made the best film at that time. Q. Did you have any part in negotiations which took place between the Eastman Company and the Patents Company, as a result of which a contract was entered into between those two companies? A. Yes. Q. Under that agreement the Eastman Kodak Company covenanted that it would not sell its film to any manufacturers other than those that took a license from the Patents Company? A. No. Q. W7as not that understood and agreed in 1909? A. No. Q. What was the agreement? A. Why, the Eastman Company were privileged to supply film to any of their old customers abroad, who might open up factories in this country, and they were also permitted to supply a certain limited quantity of film to experimenters, scientists and others, and they were, I believe, permitted to supply film of a certain width to any one. Q. They were not permitted under the agreement to sell the film of standard width to other manufacturers in the United States than those who entered into license agreements with the Patents Company? A. Yes, they were allowed to supply film to any foreign manufacturer who had been customers of theirs and who might come over and start a factory in the United States at any time. Q. Were they allowed to sell sensitized film of the standard width to others than the Patents Company licensees, excej)ting these customers of theirs who had foreign plants and whom you have just named? A. Only to a limited extent. Q. And by that limited extent you mean what? A. I have forgotten the percentage, I think it was something like three per cent, of their output or something of that sort; it appears in the answer.