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 000169 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 #:
000169
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.

Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 117 forty, are included in that number of forty-six suits stated in your answer on page 33? A. Yes, I believe so. Q. Then, as a matter of fact, this multifarious litigation that arose on patent 12192 arose in 1908, after you and the Kleine Company had refused to join in with the other Edison licensees? A. It began after the other manufacturers took licenses from the Edison Company. I don't know that Kleine refused to take a license from the Edison Company. Q. This is the same patent referred to in this statement of yours entitled, "The Facts,'' and being Exhibit 55, where you stated that no suit on this patent 12,192, so far as you know, had been pressed against anybody for the past five years? A. Yes, that is the same patent. Q. And during all this time, that is, during this period of five years, all these manufacturers were selling this motion picture film generally throughout the United States? A. Some of them were ; I don't know that all of them were during all of that time. Q. Well, in the year 1907, they all were? A. I think they were during some portion of the year 1907. Q. In this statement issued to the trade (Exhibit 55), you have printed in heavy black type from the decision of Judge Wallace, in 111 Federal, being on the original patent and referring to Edison, the words, 'He was not the inventor of the film ;" and you printed the same words again in heavy black type, taken from the opinion of Judge Lacombe, in 151 Federal, where he says : "He was not the inventor of the film." You are referring in this document there, are you not, by this film, to the same sort of motion picture film as you now claim is covered by patent No. 12.192? A. No. 1 didn't refer to that film, and I never understood the statements of either of these Courts to refer to that film. I understood their statements to refer to the raw stock upon which the motion pictures were printed and the fact that Mr. Edison did not claim to have invented the raw stock or basic material upon which the motion pictures were printed, seemed to lessen his chances of sustaining a patent upon the motion picture strip. Q. The raw stock, that is, the raw sensitized film, you admit is the creation of the Eastman Kodak Company? A. The basic material, comprising the celluloid base with sensitized emulsion coating, I understand to be the invention of