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 000200 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 #:
000200
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.

178 Opinion on Reissue 12,11)2. intervals of time, such photographs being arranged in a continuous straight line sequence, unlimited in number save by the length of the film, and sufficient in number to represent the movements of the object throughout an extended period of time, substantially as described. The only difference in these claims is that No. 2 contains the words "provided with perforated edges," inserted after the word film in the second line. Infringement of both claims was charged in this suit, but the decree was founded on Claim 2 which is the preferred one of the patent. Following the language heretofore quoted relating to the attempt made through claim 5 of the original patent (hereinabove set out), it was said by the Circuit Court of Appeals (114 Fed., 926) : "A claim for an article of manufacture is not invalid merely because the article is the product of a machine, whether the machine is patented or unpatented; but it is invalid unless the article is new in a patentable sense, that is, unless its original production involved invention as distinguished from ordinary mechanical skill. If it is new only in the sense that it embodies and represents superior workmanship, or is an improvement upon an old article in degree and excellence, within all authorities the claim is invalid. Hatch v. Moffet, 15 Fed. Rep., 252; Worcester v. Calhoun, 11 Blatch., 215; Excelsior Needle Co. v. Union Needle Co., 32 Fed. Eep., 221; Smith v. Nichols, 21 Wall, 112; Risdon Locomotive Works v. Medart, 158 U. S., 79. * * * The film was not new, and if the other characteristics of the product are not new, or are new only in the sense that they add to the article merely a superiority of finish or a greater accuracy of detail, the claim is destitute of patentable novelty." The claims of the reissue are the result of an attempt to overcome the effect of that decision. Answering an objection in the Office that there was no necessity for the complete description of the camera apparatus, the applicant said : "We also think it desirable that the complete apparatus should be described because the differences which distinguish applicant's film from the prior films are largely due to the features of novelty in the apparatus." The following is extracted from the deposition of Thomas A. Edison taken in the case against the American Mutoscope Co. and used in evidence in this case: