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 000202 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 #:
000202
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.

180 Opinion on Reissue 12,192. this special film was made extremely sensitive so that the smallest amount of light would produce great results, and we, at first, did not get them very sensitive, but they, by working on them, made them extremely sensitive, so that with the small amount of light we had, they were quite satisfactory after they had experimented on them." W. K. L. Dickson, who was the principal assistant of Edison in perfecting his apparatus, as a witness for plaintiff, said that after constructing the apparatus using the heavy thick celluloid material of Carbutt with the toothed edge for feeding, he interviewed George Eastman of Rochester who was working to produce long sheets of films for his spool camera, and told him of the great importance of producing such a film. After receiving a sample of this new film, witness showed it to Edison, who jumped out of his seat and said: "We have got it. Now work like ." Later, longer strips of this film were procured from Eastman. Owing to some imperfections in the emulsion, the film did not give complete satisfaction and Eastman labored to overcome the defects, finally succeeding. Passing by the discussion relating to the reissue and the limitations claimed to have been placed upon the claim by the proceedings in the Patent Office, we come to the question whether Edison was the inventor in the sense of the patent law of the article of manufacture described in claim 2 of the reissue patent No. 12192 : "A manufacture is an entity distinct from the substances of which it is composed, and from the instruments or art by which it is produced.' 1 Robinson, Pat. Sec. 184. "Articles of manufacture may be new in the commercial sense, when they are not new in the sense of the patent law. New articles of commerce are not patentable as new manufactures, unless it appears in a given case that the production of the new article involved the exercise of invention or discovery beyond what was necessary to construct the apparatus for its manufacture or production. Nothing short of invention or discovery will support a patent for a manufacture any more than for an art, machine or composition of matter." Collar Co. v. Van Dusen, 23 Wall., 530-563. "A patentable invention is a mental result. It must be new and shown to be of pa ten table utility. Everything within the dominion of the conception belongs to him who conceived it. The