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 000140 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 #:
000140
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 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.

118 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. blank form which the theatre desiring service was to fill out, and then send in in order to obtain service? A. Yes, that was a blank which was provided for the convenience of the exhibitor in applying for a license under our Patents. Q. And in order for these different exhibitors to get films after this date, it was necessary for them to sign this application and send in the flO fee referred to in the application? A. Well, it was necessary for them to apply for a license in some form, and to pay the license fee, and become licensed before they could obtain licensed film from licensed manufacturers. Q. And the term you use "Licensed film" is the term which you apply to all motion picture films, meaning these reels of this translucent film upon which these innumerable pictures had been printed. That is what you mean by licensed film? A. I mean film of that kind licensed for use on licensed projecting machines. Q. Well, the term "licensed film" was a term applied by you to all film with pictures upon it for use in projecting machines? A. For all such film licensed for use in projecting machines. It was not a term applied to unlicensed infringing films of such description made by unlicensed infringers. Q. All film made by these nine manufacturers named on this circular, being Exhibit No. 34, was called "licensed film," is that right? A. Yes, all film made by them was licensed film. Q. And the term "licensed film" was applied to these positive films which had been printed from the negative? A. Yes, it was sometimes called licensed motion pictures from licensed film in common parlance in the art. Q. What I mean is you are referring here in this distribution of licensed films, to positive films? A. I am referring to positive films, yes. Q. Negative films were not, and are not used on projecting machines, are they? A. No, not commonly. Q. Well, it is a very rare exception where they are used, isn't it? A. Yes, very rare. Q. And practically never. It might be for curiosity or something like that, but otherwise not, would it? A. Well, I would not go quite as far as that.