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 000141 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 #:
000141
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.

Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 119 Q. Well, 99 per cent, of the commerce is in positive films? A. I think at least 99 per cent. Q. And this positive film does not differ from any ordinary photograph, does it, except in the number of photographs that are printed, and that the subject matter or the material upon which a picture is copied is different from the material upon which an ordinary photograph is copied? A. Well, I should say that the resemblance of this motion picture film to an ordinary photograph was about the same as the resemblance in the result to a beholder of a motion picture as compared with a still picture. Q. Now, by unlicensed film, you mean the film or the positive film of any manufacturer other than these nine? A. I mean film made or imported by anybody without a license from the owners of the patent, in infringement of the patent. Q. Well, these nine were the only ones licensed, weren't they? A. Yes. Q. And these included all manufacturing at that time in this country? A. Yes. Q. Well, then, any that was imported, any positive film that was imported by anybody in this country, would be called unlicensed film under your terminology? A. Imported by anybody? You mean by anybody other than these nine? Q. Other than these? A. Yes. all such persons would be infringers. Q. This Exhibit No. 37 {supra, p. 97) which I show you. dated January 27, 1909, with a blank for the signature of an exchange below, that was a form to be issued by the exchanges to the different theatres who wished service? A. I presume it was intended for that purpose. I do not recall it. Q. Mr. Marvin, you have been talking about and using the term "infringing film." How many years has the Biograph Company been manufacturing film for use on projecting machines, or this motion picture film? A. Since the latter part of 1896. Q. From 1896 to the Fall of 1908. was a period of 12 years, and during that period, you had been selling this motion picture film? A. We had not been selling it all of