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 #:
000168
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:
May 23, 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.

146 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. A. I produce the original of an agreement between the American Mutoscope Company and Messrs. Casler, Marvin, Koopman and Dickson, covering the right to manufacture Mutoscope goods for export only, dated the 12th day of March, 1898, and having attached to it a copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors of the American Mutoscope Company authorizing such agreement. I produce a copy of an agreement dated February 10, 1901, between the Armat Moving Picture Company of Washington, and the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company of New Jersey, consisting of a limited license under the same patent owned by the Armat Company. I also produce a memorandum of agreement dated the 21st day of March, 1908, between the Armat Moving Picture Company and the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company constituting a further license agreement between the parties. These are those two Armat licenses that you asked for yesterday. I will state now that the Biograph Company paid the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars for the Latham patent. I think that is all that I have been called upon to produce. Do you want me to keep these letters? Q. Yes. You will let me see them after this morning's session? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Marvin, after the Kleine Optical Company took out a license with you in the early part of 1908, was not a suit brought on this film patent 12192 against that company in Chicago? A. I think so, but I don't know definitely. Q. A large number of suits were brought against theatres located around or about Chicago which were buying or renting films from you or films imported by the Kleine Optical Company? A. I believe that is true. Q. There were about forty or more such suits instituted? A. I think so. Q. In the answer of the Patents Co. at page 33 it states at the top of the page thai forty-six suits on the Edison film reissued patent 12192 were brought, one of the defendants being the defendant Biograph Company, and another, the defendant Kleine Optical Company. This number of suits that were brought in Chicago against the Kleine Company in 1908, and against these theatres numbering, as you say, about