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 000196 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 #:
000196
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.

174 Opinion on Keissue 12,037. lated as to other parts that there will always be a loop of slack film between said rollers and the film slide. In consequence the film cannot be advanced by any revolution of these rollers, as was the case with the biograph camera. The film as it comes from the delivery roll has a row of holes along each edge. When it is in the film slide, these holes are engaged by means of a reciprocating two-tined fork, carrying small studs or pins which pass into the holes on the opposite edges of the film, in the same way as the sprockets pass into the holes in complainant's machine. As these studs or pins are inserted on the down stroke of the fork, and withdrawn on the up stroke, the film is intermittently fed across the field of the lens. These pins or studs do not hold back the film against any forward pull, because there is no forward pull to be resisted, neither an intentional forward pull as found in the biograph, nor an accidental or occasional forward pull when the film is taut between the film slide and take-up roll as found in the camera of the patent. When the pins are withdrawn, the film lies, inert, in the film slide. But the "intermediate section'' is moved across the lens just by the interlocking engagement between a sprocket or pin and a hole in the film, thereby moving it positively, regularly, evenly, and very rapidly without jarring, jerking, or slipping; the parts being arranged so that the movement shall be intermittent. In our opinion the bifurcated fork with studs is the fair equivalent of the wheel with sprockets and the combination shown in the Warwick camera is an infringement of claims 1, 2 and 3 of the reissued patent. Claim 4 of the reissue is identical with claim 4 of the original and differs from claim 3 of the original only by the insertion of the words, "the periods of rest being greater than the periods of motion." It is obnoxious to the criticisms expressed as to original claim 3 in our former opinion and for reasons therein expressed must be held void. The decree of the Circuit Court is reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party, and the cause remanded, with instructions to enter a decree in accordance with this opinion.