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)

Page scan 00050 from 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 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 #:
00050
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
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 12, 2024
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.

28 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. Q. Well, did that description have any effect upon the question of whether or not you should impose a two dollar license? A. We never found any machines that did not infringe our patents, so it practically didn't have. Q. Some of those machines which you claim or state had been infringed had been sold outright by some of these manufacturers? A. Some of which manufacturers? Q. Let me state it differently : Each of the Patents Company's licensees had been selling projecting machines, had they? A. Yes, sir. Q. Had they been selling a large number in the years 1907 and 1908? A. Yes, I think so. Q. Now, take the exhibitor with an Edison projecting machine. When this license arrangement went into effect did you impose the license for two dollars a week upon those exhibitors or theatre owners who owned Edison projecting machines which they had bought outright prior to February 1, 1909? A. Yes, they were infringing machines. They embodied inventions in our patents. Q. Were the owners of all projecting machines in use in United States at that time obliged to pay the two dollars per week to you in older to get film after February 1, 1909? A. They were obliged to pay that royalty to us for a license, and it was necessary for them to have a license in order to get the licensed film. Q. In order to get the film, whether you call it "Licensed" or any other term, they had to pay you that fee? A. No, (hey could get unlicensed. Q. In order to get film from you they had to pay the two dollars? A. From the licensed manufacturer? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. What others of the Patents Company's licensees — I am referring now to the nine who took licenses from the Patents Company on December 18th — what others besides the Edison Company had been selling projecting machines? A. Lubin — S. Lubin; I think Pathe Freres had sold some; I believe the Essanay Company and the Selig Polyscope Company had sold a few machines. Q. Now, had those five companies you have named, Edison, Pathe Freres, Selig, Essanay and Lubin sold these projecting machines outright subject to no conditions to those exhibitors? A. I think they had.