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 000170 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 #:
000170
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.

148 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. the Eastman Kodak Company, or somebody connected therewith. Q. The Motion Picture Patents Company owns no patent covering the manufacture of that film, does it, that is, the raw stock? A. It owns no patent covering the manufacture of raw stock. Q. Mr. Marvin, taking up the Latham patent. You stated that you purchased that in the year 1908 for $2,500? A. Yes. Q. That patent had been issued five years previously? A. About that. Q. In your answer you state, at page 33, "Prior to December, 1908, nine suits had been brought by the Biograph Company under the Latham patent, 707,934, dated August 26, 1903" against the companies that you named, including the Edison, etc. These suits were all brought by you after February, 1908, were they not? A. Yes. Q. And after you had refused to join in with the other Edison licensees? A. Yes. Q. Did you not bring those suits in part as matters of retaliation against the Edison Company for the suits that were being brought against Kleine and these other theatres under this patent 12,192, upon wrhich you have stated no suit had been pressed for five years? A. No, I did not. We brought those suits for the purpose of enforcing the patents and securing the revenue under them. Q. Had you been infringing the Latham patent before you bought it? A. Yes, we did. Q. For how many years? A. I don't recollect the exact time, but the limited use that we made of the Warwick camera, infringed the Latham patent. The question as to whether the Biograph camera infringed the Latham patent or not, was one concerning which we had doubt. The owners of the Latham patent claimed that the Biograph camera did infringe the Latham patent and from time to time threatened to bring suit under that patent. Q. Has it been held that the Latham patent does not apply to moving picture cameras? Mr. Caldwell: I object to that as incompetent, the only competent proof of that point being the decree of the Court itself, if there is such a decree.