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 000192 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 #:
000192
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 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.

170 Opinion on Reissue 12,037. tinuously held by the interlocking of a sprocket and a hole. As one sprocket leaves a hole, the next succeeding sprocket enters the next succeeding hole. Irrespective entirely of any action of the take-up reel, the film must advance as the sprocket wheel moves, and cannot advance when the sprocket wheel is at rest. Complainant's expert has operated a camera constructed in substantial accordance with the specifications, and from which lie had removed the take-up reel. He found that the sprocket wheels alone moved the intermediate section of film across the camera at the requisite high rate of speed and with the intermittent motion. In the defendant's biograph camera there are the usual reels and devices for giving to some parts of the apparatus a continuous and to others an intermittent motion. The "intermediate section'1 of film is moved across the lens by two friction rollers located just beyond the film guide. These move continuously, and draw the film forward. The mechanism for holding the same stationary during the exposure is stipulated in the record. "Mounted upon the motor shaft, N, is a grooved cam n imparting movement to an arm, n1, [which arm rocks a shaft, n2]. * * * Loosely mounted upon the journal, n2 [of the rock shaft], is a tension leaf, W, forming part of the film slide [or film guide], F. The film B, passes between this tension leaf and the back plate, f, of the guide * * * n5 designates a projection mounted upon the rock shaft n2, and co-acting with the tension leaf, W, to throw the same away from the back plate and therefore out of engagement with the film when a portion of the film has been exposed and it is desired to again move the film relatively to the lens. The rolls, which draw the film, rotate constantly, and would feed the film past the lens with a continuous motion were it not that the film is gripped by the tension leaf momentarily to admit exposure." Figure 5 of the drawings of defendant's biograph machine will facilitate the understanding of this description.