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 000171 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 #:
000171
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. 149 A. I understand that in a very recent decree of the Court of Appeals, two members of the Court held thai the Latham patent did not cover cameras and one member held thai it did cover cameras. Q. Had not the Latham patent been disregarded generally in the trade by all the manufacturers for a period of four or five years as being of no value? A. I cannot say definitely as to that, because the former owners of the Latham patents were not financially able to bring suits under that patent against infringers, and therefore no suits had been started to my knowledge, and I am therefore unable to know anything about the attitude of the people who were infringing the patent. Q. Do you mean that where the owner of the patent was financially unable to bring suit to maintain his right under the patent, the manufacturers of these moving pictures deliberately infringed his patent? A. I think that was customary with them, as I believe it is customary with all other manufacturers. Q. Now, name some of the companies which were taking that high stand? A. What high stand do you refer to? Q. Of infringing the rights of the Latham patent when he was unable to bring suit? A. The Biograph Company, the Edison Manufacturing Company, Pathe Freres, Vitagraph Company, Kalem Company, G. Melies, Essanay Company, the Selig Polyscope Company, and all of the users of projecting machines throughout the United States. Q. Had there been any court decision upholding the Latham patent as applied to cameras? A. Not as I know, only the exhaustive opinion of Judge Coxe I believe, in the case I have mentioned above, and I don't know whether that is considered a decision or merely an opinion. Q. Is that a decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals? A. Yes. Q. They did not sustain the patent. They held that it was invalid so far as the moving picture cameras were concerned, did they not? A. That I did not quite understand; I merely say that that opinion of this Judge of that divided court sustained it partially — I don't know that that is what you mean by an opinion of the court — it was the opinion of one member of the court. Q. Then other than that dissenting opinion of Judge Coxe