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 000172 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 #:
000172
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.

150 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 1 in the Circuit Court of Appeals, you know of no court opinion sustaining the Latham patent? A. Well, we had a suit against the Viascope Company in Chicago. Q. The Vitascope? A. No, the Viascope. Q. Whom do you mean by "we?" A. The Motion Picture Patents Company, in which they were sued for infringement of some of the patents of the Motion Picture Patents Company, and we won the suit, and the Viascope Company was enjoined, but I don't recollect distinctly whether the Latham patent was one of the patents that was sued on or not; the records will show. 2 Q. The Viascope Company did not defend — it is a poor company? A. I don't think they made much of a defense. Q. Were you ever interested in any proceedings, and I mean by you, Marvin and Casler, or Biograph Company, in the Patent Office, relating to the Latham patent on the question of whether or not it applied to projecting machines — and if so, was it not held in that proceeding there that Latham's patent or his specifications did not apply to projecting machines? Mr. Willis: I object to that as incompetent. A. I don't so understand it. I think the proceeding to which you have reference was an interference proceeding at the time Latham's patent was in the office. Q. An interference proceeding with Armat, was it? A. An interference proceeding in which were involved Latham, Casler, Armat, and I think a man named Amat, of Chicago. The issue in that interference, as I remember it, was over a film feeding device in which the interval of pause and illumination exceeded the interval of rest. That interference was 4 finally decided in favor of Amat. Q. Do you know of any other litigation or proceedings on the Latham patent other than those you have named? A. Well, I believe that we have some suits now pending on the Latham patent. Q. Those suits have all been brought since the Patents Company was formed? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you consult or confer with Kleine — George Kleine — in the preparation of his answer against the Edi