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 #:
000189
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:
September 21, 2023
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.

Opinion on Reissue 12,037. 107 tion, by which the capacity of the reels and moving devices are augmented and adapted to carry the film of the patent rapidly and properly." Upon the record in that cause, however, we held that the "prior art did not disclose the specific type of apparatus which is described in his patent. His apparatus is capable of using a single sensitized and flexible film of great length with a single lens camera, and of producing an indefinite number of negatives on such a film with a rapidity theretofore unknown." The case was therefore an appropriate one for reissue under section 4916, Rev. St. U. S. [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3393], since there is no suggestion of any fraudulent or deceptive intention in claiming more than the patentee was found to be entitled to. Upon reissue with claims restricted to the specific type of apparatus described in the patent, the question would be presented whether those claims as thus restricted were properly allowed in view of the state of the art and whether defendant's device infringed them. The specific type of apparatus shown in the patent was thus described in our former opinion : "It is inclosed in a box-like casing from which light will be excluded, except through the lens, and which embraces an ordinary adjustable camera having the lens end mounted in the side of the box. Two reels, inclosed in suitable cases, are located on opposite sides of the camera lens. The film is drawn from one of the reels on to the other across the lens. It is transparent or translucent and tape-like in form, and is preferably of sufficient width to admit the taking of pictures one inch in diameter between the rows of holes on its edges. These holes are for engagement with the feed wheels for positively advancing the film. When the film is narrow, it is not essential to use two rows of perforations and two feed wheels ; one of such rows and one feed wheel being sufficient. The two feed wheels are carried by a shaft and engage the film on one side of the camera opening. The power is supplied by an electric motor which drives a rotating shaft carrying the feed wheels through a pulley held in frictional engagement with the feed-wheel shaft. The take-up reel, or the reel which receives the tape after passing the lens, is also driven from the motor